Hey - You Wanna Buy The Rights To TERMINATOR??

Merrick here...
The L.A. Times has a brief but interesting piece about the long slipstream of rights holders to the TERMINATOR franchise - how the rights changed hands, why, etc.
The article also reiterates what has been understood/conjectured for some time: the current rights holders (who brought us TERMINATOR SALVATION) are looking to put their rights up for sale.

The rights to the Terminator franchise are up for sale yet again.
Derek Anderson and Victor Kubicek, who acquired the science-fiction franchise in 2007 for $25 million and produced this year's sequel "Terminator Salvation," are now looking to sell them partially or outright as several companies owned by the duo work their way through bankruptcy.
Anderson and Kubicek's Halcyon Holding Group has engaged financial advisory firm FTI Capital Advisors, pending bankruptcy court approval, to "evaluate strategic alternatives," according to a statement. Since Halcyon's only valuable asset is the Terminator rights, any deal would involve an investment in, or outright sale, of them.
"We're going to be contacting a variety of studios and independent companies," said Kevin Shultz, senior managing director at FTI. "We think the values are considerably in excess of the purchase price."

...says The Los Angeles Times HERE.
Since before SALVATION's release, McG's been talking about a TERMINATOR 5 that would spill the franchise's future war into our time (indications were the film would be set in London). While TERMINATOR's rights changing hands doesn't automatically/completely short-out that potentiality, 'tis a safe bet new rights holders would wish to dispose of such notions & build further TERMINATOR projects from the ground up.

I honestly started to wonder if it was a parody interview. I think it wasn't so much my gullibility as my simple fledgling denial that she could not be that stupid. Oh wait, I didn't see the 'e' on the logo. But yeah, I imagine a lot of horrible things will be said at her expense from here on out.

<p>Regardless of its quality, Salvation has made close to $400 million worldwide theatrically.</p>
<p>What the series really needs is to disappear for a little while and return with a fresh take at the hands of a new creative team/company.</p>

And institute a re-animated "Thriller" Terminator in the guise of their "father" (deceased). Imagine a cybernetic Michael Jackson chasing down a pre-pubescent John Connor. Polanski-bot can be his sidekick.

T4 and T3 should be totally ignored and Cameron should make the REAL part 3. It will never happen I know. But they could at least buy the rights to prevent the Terminator name from being sodomized yet again.

Bale does yet another intense role. YAAAAAWN.<P>
Loved the Harvester, the Aquaterminators, mototerminators... You cannot deny that film had ideas WAAAAY above its station. Better to fail big than succeed like a mediocre piece of shit.<P>
TERMINATOR: SALVATION wasn't all bad. Put the governator in T5 somewhere and BOOM! - EPIC WIN.<P>
ESPECIALLY if we flip-mode back and reverse it, so in T5 Arnie is balls-out EVIL once again...

Which they originally intended to do in the late 90's, before Kassar and Vajna got their greedy mitts on things. Then they can give us the REAL T3, ignoring the nonsense that we've been given post-T2. Failing that, they can at least ensure that no more atrocities will be made, further sullying the name of this once illustrious series. <p>Film rights should not be treated as financial investments, which seems to be all these fuckers who have acquired the rights up until now have been interested in. Many of these idiots are not even in the film industry. Stop ruining our beloved robot movies, you cunts, and buy some shares in a bank instead - whoops, too late.

Best sequel to T2 and cancelled before its time. Great stories, hard hitting drama and intelligent sci-fi. Glau played one of the best Terminators since Arnie himself in the first film. Somebody re-start the series before the momentum is completely lost.

<p>I also thought they were the rights holders for the TV show. It was released on WB home video. They must have a deal with these two guys.</p><p>Lionsgate (then Anchor Bay) bought the rights to T2 and MGM bought the rights for Terminator.</p><p>I personally wish WB would just buy the rights to all of it so we could have a kick ass box set. Considering WB's relationship with these two guys I assume they are first in line to buy the rights.</p><p>Also, bringing the terminators back to our time AGAIN is a total diarhea shit idea. That is PLAYED OUT! We want our big future war. Salvation was just a tease of what a massive war film set in the Terminator universe could be. We need to ditch McG and continue the story he started without doing a massive leap backwards.</p>

... jumped the shark when John went goth\emo. Fuck that was stupid.
<p>T3 gets a bad rap. Terminator Salvation was a piece of shit. I would have been bored out of my mind by it if I wasn't so pissed off at watching the franchise finally bleed out in front of me.

when he was given the chance a couple years back to buy back the rights to the Beatles catalog and he passed on it. He said something like at this point it would just pain him too much to spend that kind of money he so recklessly let go. He said look, the music is out there for people and in the end that is all that matters to him. <p>
I guess that is different to this. Its not like some posers like McG can just make new Beatles music. Pauls integrity stays intact.

Seriously I can't get over the shit that goes down in that movie. Product placement at its worst (look when the Terminatrix first shows off that firehand power after the cemetary and the truck that is there. So bad). or how about the vomit worthy shit when Arnold is in the mart stealing shit and then goes back to the shitty vehicle while the music in the background is singing something like "He's a funky man, he's funky funky.." really Fucking loud. <p>
TSCC was great. Emo John? Whatever. Emo was the lame shit Peter Parker turned into in Spidey 3. That was silly stupid shit. Silly stupid like "He's a funky man, he's funky funky." Goddamn other then the ending T3 was really really bad.

Yeah that funky man bit was awful. There was way too much humour in T3, it looked cheap, and clearly had its balls removed (so it beyond me why it was an R). Still better than T4 though. The worst crime of T3 was the 'judgement day is inevitable, it was just postponed' crap. T4 fucked up the mythology a whole lot more seriously.

...just so fucking sad. I know I'm in a small minority, but I actually thought T3 was a worthy sequel. Yes, it changed the mythology, but in a good way... the ending actually moved me. But Salvation? Jesus, what an insult, on so many levels. And now, here we are, one of the great sci-fi franchises, left swirling down the toilet bowl like a rancid turd.

I thought it was stupid but not nearly as bad as "Transformers" or "GI-Joe." It was just diverting enough to put me in a good mood before I went home from work. As far as "reinventing" the franchise any further, how about we get rid of that "re-" and just come up with some new fucking ideas.

Back when Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson were making music together, Paul mentioned to Michael how the BIG money in music is with the song rights. He told Michael he owned the rights to a lot of Motown's back catalog, including Jackson 5 material. When the Beatles rights finally came up for auction, Paul had the high bid until Michael swooped in and bought the Beatles at the last minute, literally. Paul never spoke to Michael again.

Please buy the rights to Terminator and never let them see the light of day again. Let's remeber two great, classic films instead. Nobody will ever make a Terminator movie to top Terminator 2. It's physically impossible.

ARNOLD and CAMERON both have enough money to at least purchase the film rights from anyone who has them for sale. I hope in the end, when we all read VARIETY or THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTERS scoop on this, it says "Schwarzenegger and Cameron buys Terminator rights"

But the blame is not McG's, it's Bale. It would have been fine to have him in a little cameo as Connor at the end, but to end up basing the story around him was madness. I would love to have seen it with Marcus as the main character.

Second: Whoever buys the rights must fire McG. This is non-negotiable.<p>
Third: They must disavow Terminator 3 and that abortion of a film McG put out this past summer.<p>
and Fourth: hire a decent script writer and attach a decent action director to the project(Say a John McTiernan type circa 1988). In any case, what the franchise really needs to survive is the involvement of James Cameron, in some capacity, preferably as director; but most certainly as a creative consultant to the actual meat of the story.<p>
If those steps aren't followed, there won't be any reason, for pursuing another Terminator film.

Actually, McCartney recently refuted the idea that he never talked to MJ after Jacko bought the Beatles catalog. He basically said that they just grew apart after time, but that he had fond memories of the stuff they worked on together. Didn't seem to hold a grudge, but maybe he just didn't want to say in the wake of Jackson's death. Now that I've written that, I guess it's a prety small point...um, er, I might as well also say that anything after T2 is irrelevant and not even worth discussing.

I say Lightstorm Entertainment buys the rights to the franchise and Cameron at least produces, if not directs it. The film should be a prequel to Terminator 1 centering aroung the final futre war battle where the resistance finally takes down Skynet and Reese/T-800 are sent back in time. We've seen glimpses of the same battle in T1 & T2 and now we can see the full event play out in all its glory. If anyone's read the original screenplay for T2, the first 20 minutes were basically this. Cameron had the vision, but it was impossible at the time. I say exand it and finally make a film that comes full circle and completes the real trilogy - T1, T2 & now... T0!

(Revenge, just to clarify) The new UPC code can be verified, and WB definitely reissued the Blu-ray and even did an exchange program for the bad 1080i original Blu-ray release. Target is having a $9.99 Blu-ray sale on many WB titles right now and the "Corrected" 1080p Terminator 3 Blu is one of them available.

Lena Headey is playing Cersei on HBO's upcoming Game of Thrones, which will keep her busy for (hopefully) seven seasons, and I'd go back in time to kill the mother of any one of you who would screw that up by pulling her away for more Fox fanfic nonsense.

really didn't sound that bad to me. I would have liked to have seen that movie. There is probably too much Bale bashing lately, but it did sound like he kind of ruined the story arc with his demands. Worthington and Yelchin were a more interesting pair than say, I don't know...Schwarzenegger and Furlong? All they needed was more screen time.

T:SCC could continue on without Lena Headey as the show was going to focus on John in the future anyway the next season. They could simply stay in the future and maybe have occasional flashes to our time to Sarah doing smaller things to alter the future and John's new timeline.

if they had kept the TV show on. as much as it sucked, it was a 40 minute long commercial for whatever shit movie they put out. can anyone else make 1-2 million people sit through a 40 minute commercial for something every week?

listen geeks, cameron is not GOD....but ill wait till your precious AVATAR bombs then there will be no debate....terminator dont need cameron...it just needs a great story, one that doesnt involve kyle reese going back in time, its unneccesary and redundant...connor is born, connor is alive, its unneccesary..move on...give us a new story, thanks !

Who the FUCK is this girl?!?!?! She was kissing his ass so much I though she was gonna lick his asshole clean. And McG. . . what a dumb fuck you are. You honored nothing-not the fans and definitely not the first 2 films. I hope this moron never gets to butcher ANY movie again.

Even Cameron himself fucked things up with T2. The original was clearly a loop story, like Twelve Monkeys and La Jetee. But Cameron cashed in with an "easier to understand" story where the future could actually be changed, ruining his own franchise.
Salvation was actually the only sequel that treated the original concept with respect by simply showing the future war. It just wasn't a terribly good movie (although it did have some really nice sequences).
Shame that so many people's introduction to the "franchise" was via T2. They will always think of it as the quintessential Terminator movie, when it is in fact unworkable as a sequel to the truly brilliant original film.

"And McG. . . what a dumb fuck you are. You honored nothing-not the fans and definitely not the first 2 films."
<p>
As the world's biggest ever fan of the original movie, I didn't feel at all dishonored by McG's stab at the terminator universe, whereas I felt that Cameron had pissed in my face with the godawful T2. Any "fan of the first 2 films" taken en bloc is a "fan" who simply doesn't understand the metaphysics of the first movie.

"It would have been fine to have him in a little cameo as Connor at the end, but to end up basing the story around him was madness. I would love to have seen it with Marcus as the main character."
<p>
Errr...Marcus WAS the main character.

The Terminator was a classic and a perfect closed loop as you say. But if a sequel had to be made then T2 was the best one possible.
<p>
Terminator Salvation on the other hand was a total piece of shit. I'll just mention the use of 'You Could Be Mine' from T2 and stop right there.

Where did they find that brain dead broad? When she said Salvation was the best film in the series, even McG must have been thinking "what a suck up idiot".
All that being said I liked Salvation, the heart transplant at the end was stupid (spoiler? if you haven't seen it yet, why are you reading down this far?) but I'm in for a sequel.

"The Terminator was a classic and a perfect closed loop as you say. But if a sequel had to be made then T2 was the best one possible."
<p>
Or, more correctly, the best one impossible.
<p>
If the first story sets up the rule "X must be the case in this universe" and the sequel clearly has X false, it is not a sequel. It is, at best, a story set in some other narrative space that happens to bear a superficial resemblance to that of the original.

Look at it's history of bankrupt companies. First Orion/Hemdale owned the right to 1 got in finical trouble and sold them to Caroloco. Caroloco makes a shit pirate movie and a soft porn flick with Jessie from Saved by the Bell and they get fucked. Rights get sold to C2 production which technically is Caroloco, but all they do is make T3 with it, which didn't make money, and sold the rights to the Halycon group who fucked up by hiring McG and going PG-13. I wonder if Christian Bales sequel commitments come along with the rights as well? If not, then the rights are as useless as the shit I'm taking right now.

See above post. Although we could finally get a Robocop vs Terminator flick out of it. Christ if MGM goes under then the rights to The Hobbit, James Bond, Robocop , and Terminator will be out on the market. A company like Lionsgate or Summit could become a powerhouse with two of those rights.

MGM, Weinstein, Lionsgate, and Summit should merge. It would be dirt cheap to do. Harvey and Bob with a stable financial footing, like they had with Disney, are monsters. Bob Weinstein could of made the Crank films into 80-100 million dollar hits. Harvey Weinstein could've made the Hurt Locker into an Oscar juggernaut.

it is if u subscribe to that loony time travel theory. lets assume that the original terminator timeline was left intact...ala no terminator goes back to kill connors mom...got that ?? ok....well connor was there in the future in that timeline..whats to say that he was always kyle reeses son ? he coulda been any jo shmos son...connor himself altered that timeline when he sent reese back...otherwise reese wouldnt hav been there to impregnate his mother...and again whats to say that the connor that was spawned was the same john connor that was originally in the future.....now does that blow ur mind or what ? time is not a loop, a looping timeline is for the weak minded..once u change something its changed, connor is born, he dont hav to send reese back, and even if he dont, connor does not go poof instantly....it doesnt take many neurons to figure tht out guys.

... needs to be shot in the face.
In then, like, Omigod, I totally couldn't believe the Terminator kept going. Cuz like, I just saw these movies for the first time and, this one is totally the best and like, what would really be cool is to sleep with a Hollywood director. If I like, have sex with you Mr. McG, would you, like, totally put me in one of your awesome movies?

It would be my dream to keep any more movies from being made for Terminator, though the TV series I might give a free pass.<BR><BR>If only we could go back and time and stop it at T2.<BR><BR> I'd also love the Aliens. At this point the only way to stop that would be to nuke it from orbit.

So all you fanboys have spent years going over in your heads what a new Terminator film would be like. You work up what the future will be like and when you see it, it's nothing like what you think it should be. Bam! Now your unhappy because it isn't like you dreamed about, spanked your monkey about. I hate that. You people had over 22 years to dream about the Star Wars clone wars. And when it wasn't Vader helping to hunt down and destroy the last of the Jedi. You all acted like Lucas had ruined all of your childhoods. Did you forget it was his galaxy he was creating in and not yours? Terminator Salvation was a decent movie. Sure it had it's flaws but I don't see any of you with better ideas for a sequal. Get a life.

i disagree on both trek and transformers...trek was amazing, and transformers 2 while sloppy was a great movie....i did like salvation as well....i dont understand the hate....but its mostly from the pro cameron croud that think hes the only one that makes good movies...thats delusional if u ask me...but about terminator ...a father/son story ? seriously ? i think reese doesnt hav to go back for the terminator story to make sense....i mean connor wont cease to exist if reese dont go back....can we at least agree on that ?

Remember seeing them in their sunglasses, sbeing interviewed (below) and I felt they seemed to be more interested in posing as cool hollywood producers than making anything worthwhile, despite them saying they were huge fans.<P>Check 'em out.(BBC so might be country restricted):<P>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7414024.stm

If Cameron/Arnold buy the rights = Instant Credibility = Financial Success <br>
No matter what Cameron does with the movie, it will make loads of money. <br>
The public will go nuts in anticipation of a Cameron produced Terminator movie. <br>
He can use Arnold and Robert Patrick as the 50 something year old the scientists working on the Terminator project. <br>
Cameron can then use his fancy CG talents to do all sorts of things with the older actors. <br>
That would be money in the bank.
You know it.
No matter what he decides to do storywise.

"it is if u subscribe to that loony time travel theory. lets assume that the original terminator timeline was left intact...ala no terminator goes back to kill connors mom...got that ?? ok....well connor was there in the future in that timeline..whats to say that he was always kyle reeses son ? he coulda been any jo shmos son...connor himself altered that timeline when he sent reese back...otherwise reese wouldnt hav been there to impregnate his mother...and again whats to say that the connor that was spawned was the same john connor that was originally in the future.....now does that blow ur mind or what ? time is not a loop, a looping timeline is for the weak minded..once u change something its changed, connor is born, he dont hav to send reese back, and even if he dont, connor does not go poof instantly....it doesnt take many neurons to figure tht out guys."
<p>
Dear god, where do I start with this sophomore analysis?
<p>
Your first mistake is here:
<p>
“the original terminator timeline was left intact...ala no terminator goes back to kill connors mom...”
<p>
No. WRONG. There was never any such timeline. There was never, EVER a version of history with no terminator. Got that?
<p>
“now does that blow ur mind or what ?”
<p>
No. What blows your mind is conceiving of the story correctly, which is that history is a static four dimensional structure in which most adjacent slices only have a truth relationship/causality that pass from "left to right" (metaphorically) but that two key slices have a relationship passing from right to left. You may well question how such an uroboros universe came to be, but that is a separate issue. (You can invoke divine creaton if you like; god set it up as a personal amusement...whatever.) The actual structure itself is entirely consistent.
<p>
The big problem with naive analyses such as yours (and believe me, I've read hundreds of them) is that you completely fail to understand the significance of the photograph in the movie. The photograph is there to show you that the "version of history" you see now, after all these "changes", is the exact same version from which Reese came, as we see him with that same photograph in his past (in 2021 or whatever). In order to justify your "original terminator timeline" hypothesis, you will have to explain how precisely Reese got to have in his possession a photograph of Sarah that was identical – to the molecule – with a photo taken of Sarah in that jeep with that dog in the back with that headband with the saem exact light and her hair the same exact length blown in exactly the same way by the wind. That's just *coincidence*, right? Ummm, no, that's James Cameron using the same device that Terry Gilliam uses when he shows you the moment of Bruce Willis's death in Twelve Monkeys: he's telling you that THIS IS THE SAME, LOOPING TIMELINE. To misunderstand that is to MISUNDERSTAND THE ENTIRE MOVIE.
<p>
And the other thing you have to accept in your interpretation is that John Connor, the saviour of humanity, has just been killed. By Kyle Reese. Yup, by getting Sarah pregnant with 50% new genetic material, Reese has ensured that the John Connor who saved the world will never be born. Nice going, Reese! So your view of events is that Skynet has actually won, and the credits roll as Sarah drives off into the distance with her cuckoo child gestating inside her.
<p>
Also, when Kyle tells Sarah that she and John were "in hiding before the war", why on earth would she have been hiding from something she had no idea was coming?
<p>
I guess most people just can’t reason correctly about nonlinear causality. You can demonstrate it very easily in certain mathematical structures, but it's outside of the range of conventional, everyday human experience, so people's minds tend to break down and impose their everyday experience onto a structure where it simply won't work.

Terminator is done. There are no more creative angles to work- that doesn't mean somebody won't try, but it will suck and they will lose money and wish they hadn't. The TV show was good and interesting, but obviously not enough people were interested.

There are a number of different "sets of rules" for the metaphysics of time travel (at least three major ones). Different narrative universes will choose one of these. The Terminator is a single timeline, looping universe. Something like TimeCop, for instance, clearly isn't (it uses the ruleset that you are incorrectly applying to The Terminator, i.e. the ability to change history, instantaneous changes etc.)
<p>
Notably, certain sprawling universes use different rules at different times, most obviously Star Trek, which uses at least two of the major three (rewrite and branching), and possibly all three (someone will have to remind me if there is a time loop story somewhere in Star Trek...there are hints of one in The Voyage Home (the "invention" of transparent aluminum), but it isn't clear).

"Best of the Terminator movies"? No. She is a serious airhead. I used to have a girlfriend just like that. Good looking and great to fuck, but you were ashamed to let her talk to your buddies. Serious embarrassment. Even that douche McG looks uncomfortable. LOL!

MCG did what i did not believe could be done
he made a great trminator sequal
he paid complete respect to camerons ideas
then took it full throtal intop the futre
i do feel bad for Bale man
cause lets be honest
this was Sam's movie
the terminator had the better role
as did heath
when will Bale have his next "American Psycho "?
i dont know
but i am hearing that both Terminator and Batman will not have him coming back
and that concerns me as a film buff
and as a Patrick Bateman fan
so i doubt we will see a MCG directed "Terminator 5" now
about the war
but after Salvation
i can say
thats a shame

Watch it again...no one ACTUALLY changed the past. Sure, the characters in Terminator 2 THINK that they are changing the past, but they clearly aren't. Anyway, that's the big unalterable rule...the past cannot EVER be changed. If the past is changed, then it just ain't Terminator. But It was Terminator 3 that did this. Terminator was the first of those movies that actually involved the timeline being altered. Not Terminator 2. In Terminator 2, no one changed ANYTHING. Just like in The Terminator, what happened is what was always SUPPOSED to happen.

...was supposed to invent Skynet and he changed course and then died in T2, so it seems that the past has been changed. <p>
That said, the original Terminator movie is about destiny. It's about how the future is already set and how Sarah Connor must face it. <p>
T2 is about hope and challenging fate. It takes the conceit of the first film and unravels it. Your fate is what you make it. <p>
They're different themes, which is what makes both films great. The time travel theories (which are brilliantly explored in both films) are just a device. And Cameron knew what he was doing when he made T2, that's why he's fucking awesome at making sequels. <p>
That's why he needs to make the true third Terminator movie.

Terminator 2 did not VIOLATE the loop story from the first movie. Many people are under the mistaken impression that in Terminator 2, the heroes managed to stop Judgement Day. This is wrong. They COULDN'T have stopped Judgement Day. Everything that happened at that point in time and space ALWAYS happened in that point in time and space. Moments DO NOT CHANGE. This is an extension of the first movie. If we accept that Kyle Reese was ALWAYS John Connor's father, and that the Terminator was ALWAYS present in 1984, then Terminator 2 doesn't change shit. Hell, after the arrival of Reese and The Terminator in 1984, we are to understand that this timeline LEADS TO the exact same future in which Reese and The Terminator go back in time. Nothing changes in Terminator 2. In fact, Terminator 2 acknowledges that the timeline with the remains of the first Terminator IS the timeline that leads to Judgement Day. That is in fact the point of the arm and the chip...just as Kyle Reese and The Terminator caused the birth of John Connor, Kyle Reese and The Terminator also caused the creation of Skynet. This is obvious in Terminator 2, and does not violate the rules in The Terminator. So if Li'l John Connor ends up destroying the arm and the chip, THAT DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. We already accept that this "past" leads to a certain "future". Destroying the arm and the chip, and blowing up the Cyberdyne facility does NOTHING to change this. No one can erase the consequences of that future tech being present in 1995, because that future tech was ALREADY in 1995. So whatever anyone does to that future tech, it's just part of the inevitable history of that timeline. Terminator 2 IS consistent with The Terminator. The series did not get fucked up until Terminator 3. That was the first time in the series in which ANYONE actually managed to change the past. Terminator 3 misunderstood the first two movies by thinking that the events of Terminator 2 changed the timeline one fucking bit. Terminator 3 then fucked up the timeline by having the new Terminator ACTUALLY KILL ITS TARGET. That cannot happen, that is never supposed to happen, and that one simple change to the rules fucks up the entire mythology.

Then John and Sarah Connor got him killed. Sorry, but I don't see the inconsistency here. He found technology from the future, he used it to form the foundation of Skynet, then he got his ass blown up. I still fail to see how that's supposed to change the future. Did him getting perforated and then exploded somehow UNDO the work that he already did?

I'm not gonna get into a sausage-fight about time travel and Terminator. Maybe the events of T2 changed the future, maybe they didn't. It's open to interpretation. That's the point. It's a story, not real science. <p>
That said, Cameron did film a happy ending with Judgment Day averted. So he was clearly considering it. <p>
But then he took that ending out and left Sarah Connor pondering. So there's that too. <p>
Point is, it's Cameron's story. What he did in T2 was a great breakdown of the elements of the first Terminator (including, as you say, the reveal that the arm and chip from the future was the catalyst for Skynet). <p>
As it is, the end of Terminator has the future set in stone, the end of T2 leaves us wondering. The rest is fucking fanfic.

Why would Skynet send Terminators back in time knowing that the past cannot be changed? If the computers have the knowledge to create a time machine then they must also have unravelled the mysteries of time itself. Even if they didn't fully understand, trial runs of the tech would have revealed times unchangable nature. Skynet must have known that if anything is ever sent back to the past then it has always been a componant of that past and played a part in the creation of the future that already exsists (Unlike Back To The Future, where time travel creates an alternate universe.). But fuck it, its only a movie.

That's the whole point of T2. It subverts the original Terminator. The same way Empire Strikes Back subverts everything we knew in Star Wars. It's good story-telling, and it's great sequel-writing. It doesn't fuck up the first film, it adds to it. <p>
Freebeer: maybe Skynet didn't "unravel the mysteries of time". Maybe they didn't get a chance. Maybe the first Terminator movie was the first chance they got to use the machine. <p>
Maybe time can be altered, maybe it can't. Seeing the events leading up to that moment in Skynet would have answered those questions. And I don't want to see McG's half-witted grasp at it.<p>
If Cameron had made his true third film (complete with Michael Beihn as Kyle Reese) we would have had a real completion of the cycle. <p>
And he clearly wanted to do it. He did that T2 ride after all.

I don't see why we have to assume that Skynet knows what it is doing. Hell, when humans built the Large Hadron Collider, did they know what the results would be? People developed atomic bombs without even being 100% sure that they'd work. The Wright Brothers built their historic airplane without realizing the consequences. I don't see why we have to assume that it would be any different with Skynet. This was also Skynet's last desperate attempt to survive. They also very well have known that it may not work, but fuck it, they're about to lose, so they'd might as well try anyway. It's also a big "if" as to whether or not it would even be POSSIBLE to do trial runs. I mean, if there were no Terminators in 1965, then obviously a trial run to 1965 would not work. It HAS to fail, or else there would be Terminators in 1965.

I'd go back to 1991 and tell Cameron to hang onto those fucking film rights.<p>
Somewhere in a parallel existence, we've all watched Terminator 3 in 1995, directed by James Cameron and starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton, Edward Furlong and Michael Biehn. It starts in the future and finishes at the beginning of Terminator in 1984. <p>
And it's fucking brilliant. Easily the best film trilogy ever made. <p>
You know, he could still do it.

Really? Are you fucking serious? Dude, what you are suggesting happened in Terminator 2 would INVALIDATE The Terminator. If the past can be changed and the future can be avoided, then that reduces The Terminator to a piece of Bullshit. That ABSOLUTELY fucks up the theme of predestination in the first movie. Now I have no problem with James Cameron making a movie with a polar opposite theme, but this should not happen in THE SAME FUCKING UNIVERSE. The themes are inconsistent. Predestination IS inconsistent with free will. The existence of one eliminates the existence of the other. If Terminator 2 DOES show that Judgement Day can be avoided, then that DOES fuck up the first movie since the whole theme of the first movie is completely fucking invalidated.
No, I think you're misinterpreting Terminator 2 as well. Predestination and fate were the themes in the first movie, but there still seemed to be a level of HOPE. In Terminator 2, the "no fate but what we make" theme is bullshit in the sense that its relevance on the absolute nature of the universe is irrelevant. The universe IS still entirely deterministic, and Judgement Day cannot be avoided. But the important thing is HOPE. But the basic most fundamental rule CANNOT be changed. The past MUST be unalterable, and what will happen MUST happen. The conceptual universe IS deterministic, and without the ability of anyone to change ANYTHING. THAT is the world of the Terminator. You fuck with that, you change the basic nature of the universe, then you've just invalidated the first movie.
No, if you need to make an optimistic movie set in the Terminator universe, then you have to find optimism IN predestination. Terminator 2 does this by making its characters oblivious to the fact that their actions were either inevitable and predetermined, or don't amount to shit. But the presdestination HAS to still be very real within that conceptual universe, or else the first movie truly IS retroactively invalidated.

The great thing about the 1995 James Cameron-directed Terminator 3 from the parallel universe, that we've never seen, is that it stars Michael Biehn as Kyle Reese, and we follow him until the epilogue, which is a recreation of the opening of The Terminator. <P>
But it also stars Arnold Schwarzeneggger as the terminators from Terminator and T2, both sent back moments apart from each other before Skynet is destroyed. <p>
Honestly, it's fucking great. I'm gonna watch it again.

Bullshit. The first movie CLEARLY established that time CANNOT be altered. Those are the rules for this series, so those are the rules. If time CAN be altered, then it ain't Terminator. It's just expensive fan-fiction. Time travel rules have very significant implications on the themes in movies, and this ain't just trivial stuff that we can change at a whim. Doing so DOES destroy the mythology. I have no inherent preference for any specific time travel rule, but the rule established in a movie needs to be upheld in any and all sequels. Period. Erasing history and alternate timelines were not a part of the Terminator universe, and so erasing history and alternate timelines should NEVER be a part of a Terminator story. Meanwhile, I don't personally favor Back to the Future timeline rules. But no Back to the Future movie should EVER use Terminator time travel rules. If you can't make your movie conform to the rules laid forth within the original movie in the series, then make a movie with the same themes, and set it in a different and original universe. In time travel movies, the NATURE of timetravel is very very important. Do time travel however you want, but all sequels HAVE to abide by the same time travel rules set in the original movie. You can't just change that shit on a whim.

I just got back from the alternate 1995, where I wanted to watch James Cameron's awesome Terminator 3 again... <p>
And it doesn't exist. Mostow and McG fucking cancelled it out when they made their shitty movies.

Kaitan and I seem to be the few people here who actually give enough of a shit about the original to actually care about the themes and rules. Now granted, I disagree with Kaitan on whether or not T2 destroyed the series. He says yes, I say that didn't happen until T3. But it's funny how pretty much NOBODY ELSE gives a flying fuck about whether or not Terminator 2 was consistent with the first movie. Then those same people have the gall to criticize MCG for "not getting" the Terminator series. Dude, pretty much everyone here can agree that no one has "gotten" the Terminator after 1991. That was almost 20 years ago. The Terminator series hasn't been any good in over 18 years, and there are actually a hell of a lot of people who think (with good reasons) that the only good one was the first one. And that was 25 years ago. And somehow we're getting all upset about McG's lack of understanding about Terminator? Jesus, most Terminator FANS don't even understand the FIRST FUCKING MOVIE in the series. Look at all you people. Talking about how McG destroyed Terminator. SERIOUSLY?! Is that a fucking joke? Where the fuck have you people been for the last 18-25 YEARS? Yeah, McG's movie was shit. Big fucking deal. It just boggles my fucking mind how many people here refuse to even UNDERSTAND the original movie, and then go on to justify the original movie being RUINED. While then yapping about McG somehow destroyed the series 18 YEARS LATER. Dude, Terminator has been dead for a LONG time. McG didn't do a single thing to kill it.

This movie would have been inevitable only a couple of generations ago. But shoot it anyway, dammit. Yeah, Bud and Lou are dead but--exempting their "Who'd On First" routine--is anyone familiar with their movies? Ever see IN THE NAVY, THE TIME OF THEIR LIVES, HOLD THAT GHOST or A&C GO TO MARS? Didn't think so. Hence, it's a premise that's ripe for a sequel. The "Who's Abbott and Costello" buzz will generate solid p.r. And I'd bet that Arnold would volunteer toplay the Terminator. My job is done.

There WAS no disarray between Terminator and Terminator 2. There is NOTHING to "solve". Furthermore, there is the frankly idiotic idea that certain events can be "inevitable" and yet somehow "delayed". That's bullshit. If you can cause something to happen "later", then you've changed it. So what prevents you from stopping it entirely in the first place? If it's even possible to DELAY Judgement Day, then Judgement Day is no longer "inevitable". Because if it changes AT ALL, then IT IS NOT THE SAME EVENT.

in every Terminator movie, and then IT DOES!!! And, that's why it sucks, because no one in the story says, "Hey, what if I can change time? Why does it have to be the same all the fucking time?" Fucking weird ass franchise.

You have got to watch that bubblehead interviewing Bale. I had to seek it out. It's fucking gold. Here: <p>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAGY-jgGkcU&feature=channel_page <p>
Honestly, it's fucking shameful to watch. Bale is not a man to tolerate fucking amateurs. <p>
That said, she's virtually dishing out free blow jobs at every interview.

i hear you man - If only Cameron had done a future war T3 in 95/96 to complete the trilogy -- Using his disguarded T2 end of war/time chamber intro - and stretching it out to 2 ½ hours<p>
i mean the all important reese being sent back with the terminators wouldve been done (with Biehn as Reese..damn that wouldve been so cool)...so no need to have the crappy T3 we got and this new trilogy (if they even bother making sequels) as its those scenes which are the whole point of starting this new series (they were obviously holding those scenes for T6 - which might not even happen now) <p>
the extended future scenes can be found in the T2 novel and illustrated screenplay (complete with storyboards) It was disguarded as it felt abit out of place in T2 - starting the film with a 20 minute prologue narrated by John set in 2029.<p>
it was also explored in the comics showing the end of the war and Reese and the terminator being sent back, its seen in the 2 parter from NOW comics 'Terminator All My Future's Past' from 1990 (so before T2) - i remember flicking through it in a comic store (mustve been in 1990) and seeing Reese on the time chamber being prepared to be sent back and memorising Conners instructions and thinking 'WOW that would look amazing onscreen' and they STILL havent done it!! it was also explored in the post T2 Malibu comics Cybernetic Dawn/Nuclear Twilight comics....i was damn certain wed see it in T3 and then again in T4..but still no <p>
Cameron couldve done it as T3 instead of that silly T2-3D thing he did for the amusement park...when was that 1996 or so?...Arnie wouldnt have looked so old then (like in 2003s T3) and Biehn couldve got away with playing Reese again (just) ….wonder who theyd have got for Conner around then?...have to be a 40 someting actor as itd be set 2029...how about Gabriel Byrne? or Liam Neeson<p>
Camerons terminator ‘trilogy’ could’ve been amazing - ALL great (like Star Wars OT, Indy 1-3 and LOTRs), not just 1 and 2...(kinda like Godfather, Superman and X Men)<p>
maybe if they do get the go ahead for T5 they should just wrap it all up with the end of war plus Reese and all the terminators being sent back...rather than risk streching it out to T6 as well if T5 dosnt do too well at the box office (T5 would be just 'filler' anyway if they intend to do a trilogy...i mean WTF would it be about?! 'Regin of Terminator' set in London present day?)....why does everything have to be trilogies anyway? 5 films would be ok...they doing that for LOTR <p>
if they dont do any more we wont see all the good stuff....kinda like if Lucas scrapped Episodes II and III after the disappointment of Phantom Menace<p>
they shouldve included everything in this film...set it futher on in the 2020s, the Cameron-esque blue night battles, plasma rifles, T800s on the battle field, end of the war, all the time travel - reese and the terminators sent back, death of Conner...end scene couldve been Arnie in the time chamber, kneeling, just about to be sent..cue Fidel theme.....R rating <p>
ironically it probably wouldve been hugely succesful then and made $500m-600m ww and theyd want sequels LOL<p>
as it stands at the moment theres a good possibility there wont even be a T5 - its sort of the same situation that Burtons planet of the apes and superman returns were in...huge budgets, hoping to relaunch the franchaise, underperformance in the 300ms...lackluster reviews...planned sequels scrapped<p>
so maybe there wont be a T5 - if not i fully expect a modestly budgeted hard R rated remake/reimagining of T1 in 5 years - kinda like the remakes of Texas Chainsaw/Halloween/Friday 13th/Nightmare...after all T1 was pretty much a stalk and slash horror B movie with a sci fi twist so maybe it will go back to its roots instead of mega budget action sci fi

I tend to side with your opinion on this but when Arnold is explaining the history of Skynet my recollection is that what he said suggests Dyson was killed earlier due to the events in T2 which would suggest that in the T2 universe time can be altered.
T2 used to be my favourite film of all time. Now having analysed it and seen it so many times i find it difficult to enjoy on its own merits or have an objective opinion about.
One thing for sure I don't credit even Cameron with being as surefooted on the time travel thing as you and I might hope.
He is responsible for one huge plot hole in T2 which is that the t-1000 is entirely metal and so shouldn't be able to travel through time, no '...field generated by a living organism'
As much as I always wanted to see a Cameron produced T3 I do wonder what he could do with it. It would have to be set in the future war, but filming the defeat of skynet complete with Reece being sent back at the end doesn't really appeal to me. We know what happens, there is no tension there.
A final point, I'm sure Cameron has said several times he's not interested in doing another Terminator, even ten years ago I'm sure he said his heart wasn't in it. Maybe he's not being entirely honest, who knows, but I cant see him ever returning to the series. But it would be nice if he could buy the rights and prevent others from soiling the name any further.

the Terminator franchise is now worth 5 bucks! 5 fucking dollars! It's a bargain.<br><br>Maybe Cameron will be able to buy it back, and finally, for the first time in his whole life, he will ACTUALLY own the franchise he created. There's hope.

T:TSCC addressed the whole "changing the future/past" thing. They more or less confirm that changing the past doesn't erase a person that traveled back in time, but they essentially experienced different time lines. Plus the finale of T:TSCC shows that even if John Connor "didn't exist", Judgement Day still happens AND the Resistance is still born...Connor's dad basically forms it instead.

he has the money,he is the creator of the franchise,he is the only one who can save it,and after all the rights will come full circle and back to its original owner.isnt life ironic?
<p>if he buys them,these news alone would create a huge buzz around the geekworld,and if used wisely he could even use it as PR way for his upcoming avatar premiere.what the fuck is he waiting for?

the consequences of time travel.even modern physics havent come to a definitive answer about the effects of time travel,and whatever answer scientists give are only on a philosophical basis.
<p>the problem with those movies are that they are BAD movies.especially T4 which apart from a crap script,it is also badly directed.
<p>dont u understand that the american movie industry is on decline as originality and quality is concerned? we have predator falcons,negro gold-tooth transformers,alien and the thing prequels,highlander remakes,all the cult horror movies rebooted and so on and so on.
<p>How time travel is treated in a terminator movie,is the least of the problems,when the clueless,hired for a job and not a vision,director talks about the concept of a terminator war in a modern London.Holywood is fucked up if it continues like this.

I never knew they'd actually storyboarded and scripted the future scenes that lead to Skynet and the time machine for T2. Fuck me, seeeing those moments, acted out by mid-90s Biehn and Schwarzenegger would have been fucking mind-blowing. Up there as childhood must-see moments alongside Obi-Wan knocking Anakin into the lava pit. Hmm, well... <p>
I haven't seen Salvation (I just couldn't be bothered), so I didn't know - and am surprised - McG wasn't so ejaculatory that he threw them in for extra fan-pandering. <p>
But I'm thankful. Look, the last holiest bit of pure Terminator lore has yet to be fucked up. It's still there for Cameron to reclaim as his own. <p>
Seriously though (and even with geriatric Indy IV still molesting my mind) I could still convince myself that Cameron could film it all today, with Schwarzenegger, with Biehn, with Robert Patrick. I'd still be gagging to see it. The buzz alone (even if it was Indy IV bad) would bring in the $$$$. <p>
Christ, I'm starting to sound like AB King. <p>
The true Terminator 3. Give it to us, James Cameron. C'mon! And, Ominus, you're right, the fan buzz around it would be enough to make Avatar succeed. Just thinking of Cameron's T3 is making me feel the need to revisit that smurf's trailer with new eyes.

Thinking about it, I don't want to see a bunch of baggy-faced geriatrics re-enacting their glory scenes. <p>
This is the first true calling for Zemekis' mo-cap technology. <p>
This is what all that Polar Express/Beowulf bullshit was for - Cameron's mo-capped true T3: starring the voice talents of Michael Biehn and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the mo-capped running of Robert Patrick. In 3D.

I watched the first terminator not long ago and it has a sence of dread all the way through it. T2 keeps it but it's masked by the kid story which is fine but come to T3 and T4 its a fucking joke movie.
In T4 why am i not bricking my pants evey time something moves. i should be thinking that every corner has a terminator on it and its after me..... naaa don't be silly
Even when they are at the factory they are just hurding people thats all. even in TSCC they have terminators experimenting on people learning about them on the operating table.
Movies are watered down now and spread so thin to reach as many people as possible for the $$$

Only a few weeks back when all this "rights issue" started, they reported that Schwarzenegger was approached to buy half the rights and own the TERMINATOR property. This was Arnie's agent/handlers saying this. So why hasn't Arnie put down some money to buy the rights already??? The man is worth between 200-800 million! The same with Cameron. He said he never wanted to make another Terminator film since he didn't own it. Well, now is the chance of a lifetime to buy the rights and make new TERMINATOR films with ARNOLD. God knows Jim is the god of special effects and can de-age Arnie and make a bad ass TERMINATOR 5 and TERMINATOR 6! Cameron wanted to make ALIEN 5 with Arnie, but that won't happen. So why ALIEN 5 but not TERMINATOR5???

Cameron didn't let this one slide -the T-1000 came back in time wrapped in an outer flesh 'cocoon', which it shed upon arrival. This was a concept tried out for the film (and is even mentioned in the novel), but it was dropped because a)It would potentially confuse the audience, b)it was tonally out of place, looking like the alien shedding its skin in Alien, and c)because it would reveal the T-1000 was non-human right from the off. In the original conception of the film, you wouldn't know if the T-1000 was the Reese like protector and Arnold the bad guy again, until the mall shoot-out. Its also why T-1000 stabs that cop through the abdomen in the beginning, but the blocking makes it look like he only dropped him with a punch to the gut. So, the T-1000 came back in an outer covering - you just didn't see it.<p>Personally, the explanation that the T-1000 can mimic substances at a molecular level, including flesh, is enough of an explanation for me as to why it could beat the time displacement equipment. Anything else is over-analyszing the pudding.<p>The whole time field stuff is kind of inconsistent anyway. Why not just wrap weapons in flesh cocoons, Cronenberg-like, and take them through? Again, becuase it'd be tonally inconsistent, and such 'rules' are just used to marginally explain the set-up of the story and get the narrative rolling.

come on cameron,buy the fuckin rights.and after avatar make the true terminator 3 in 3D,ignoring the previous turds.
<p>if u aim to bring 3d at the cinemas,then what is better for the creator of the Terminator franchise,than bringing us the future machine war in 3D.its not that u havent attempted it before,and now u have the money and the technology to make it the way u want it.
<p>what r u waiting for,hurry up otherwise tom cruise might buy the rights and have him as John Connor in his movie.or even worse as the bad terminator...

and kill the very first hominidae that left the trees and though it was a good idea to walk the ground. It's the best way to be sure the machines can kill John Connor once and for all by killing the grandfather of the species.

Cameron should buy the rights and make T5 - the last one with the end of the war/time travel scenes etc....itd just ignore T3 and T4 but at the same time no reason they didnt happen - just continue the story as if Cameron was doing 'T3' in 95 or 96 - with all the blue night battles, plasma fire etc etc - R rated of course....still use Bale as Conner and probably Checkov as Reese again (Biehn too old)....Arnie de-aged for the end (but more convincing than CGIArnie in T4)...Robert Patrick too...no need to show the lame TX - just mention 'she' got sent back too off camera....<p>
no need for Cameron to direct - he could just write and exec produce and get someone he wants to direct (not McG)...<p>
itd be like him sorting the whole Terminator mess out for the fans...and himself

Albeit one with emotional and thematic weight, but again it was ever only used to get the ball rolling. Terminator is not back to the Future, with characters criss-crossing through time continuously, and affecting the flow of events (or not, as the case may be). We never SEE the results of actions in either the first 2 films. They derive their resonance from the dread/hope/melancholy of things to come. And Cameron did not violate this with T2. He very cleverly left it open-ended, thus allowing himself to explore a diametric theme/time travel theory to the original (as well as the Terminator being a protector as opposed to a killer on a character level), while still remaining consistent with the first film. It was a brilliant move, and he knew entirely what he was doing. <p>A pity he didn't get to bring the series full circle with his version of T3, which would undoubtedly have made that clear to the T2 detractors, and would have cleared up any supposed 'retconning', which, if you closely examine the duology, are nowhere in evidence.<p>As for those who misguidedly wish to defend McG, it's not a case of him violating any 'rules of the universe', which were already ruined by the ham-handed T3, but his failure on so many other levels - from having a future that looks less like a tech-noir Dante's Inferno than somewhere I wouldn't mind spending my vacation, to lacklustre action sequences, to massive internal inconsistencies (just what is a T-800 doing in 2018 anyway, other than an excuse to get Arnold in there as a financial investment? Reese: "these are new." Well, no Reese, they're about a decade old according to McHamburglar). Also, the fact that the film is about NOTHING - it's just an excuse to set up a future war trilogy. Cameron's 2 movie were about something. They both mushroomed out from many over-arcing thematic ideas, and T2 played off of and deepened many aspects of the original, which is why it was such a superlative sequel.

Didn't this movie make 170 million over the production cost? Both this and Watchmen have recently been labeled as box office flops. Watchmen has made 50 mil over it's production value. I don't get how movies that make that much money are still considered failures. It seems like hollywood isn't happy unless a summer film is raking in Transformers 2 numbers. It's getting ridiculous.

personally, i think machines and inanimated objects would be easier to travel time and distances then living beings, in that living beains are extremely complex things, full of working stuff operating ALL THE TIME, unlike an animated thing or a machine whch cna be turned down and became a relatively simple structural thing. The forcefield surrouding living beings explanation form the first movie seems like one of the very rare ocasions where Cameron did a concession to new-ageism. It would also add the dramatic effect of somebody from the future arriving at the present without any kind of weapons and making the take out of a terminator so much harder.

My own take on why the first Terminator movie is so gripping and why the later movie is so uninvolving, just like all blockbuster made this year and most blockbusters made this recent years is that The Terminator had this sense of reality to it. It helps build tension, and the feling there's real danger.<br><br>When movies like the latest Terminator are full of impossible stuff and characters survive the most impossible odds with little harm to them, where's the tension? Where's the sense of danger? All we get is this big circus acts, all very safe, all very bland, all very uninvolving. Indeed rare is a movie which delivers a sense of drama and dread, that we feel the characters are really facing real life threatning danger. This holds specially true to EVERY BLOCKBUSTER made this year.

If Cameron buys the rights, he can shoot a future war film that looks like the beginning of T2. Imagine a 2 hr movie like the intro to T2...that would fucking rule! If Arnie gets the rights, you bet your ass Arnie will give them to his pal Cameron. I hope Jim is reading what the talkbackers are saying and buys the rights soon to create buzz in Hollywood. And yes, if Cameron gets the rights, TERMINATOR 5 should follow AVATAR!

Yeah, that was obviously in the movie just because of the notion that "fans" want to see Arnold. Of course, McG never should have done that since it isn't consistent with the series, but he's clearly spineless. But I think that sort of supports the notion that Terminator was already "dead" before McG touched it. For a LOT of people, consistency in these movies doesn't even matter and themes are unimportant. I think that a lot of people think that if Arnold isn't in it, then it ain't Terminator. And you know, when it comes to that point, then it's not even about story any more. It's just about a gimmick. By that point, the series has become a joke, sort of like Alien.

Batman, you haven't grasped that there is a huge difference between science and logic/metaphysics. That is why you fail. It's always interesting hearing the opinions of eleven year olds, though, just starting to struggle with heavyweight concepts, so do keep writing.
<p>
Veebeeyes, broadly agree with what you write. But I do think you are being too generous to T2. Had you asked people after T2 whether or not the future had been changed, almost all of them would have said "yes". It's seems clear (to me, anyway) that it's the overriding theme of the film (there's no such thing as fate), and indeed the original script and the filmed-but-unused ending have that scene in 2020 or whenever it was with no Skynet, John Connor as a senator etc. Now you can argue that Cameron made the choice not to include that scene, but the story that led up to it in the script is still the story you see.
<p>
I think that it's only now, after T3 and Salvation, that it has become the norm to retcon T2 (or to gravitate towards a minor hypothesis that it allowed some elbow room for) as a "nothing's changed" story, but as I say, I don't believe that this was Cameron's major authorial intention at the time.

WANTS the rights? All you people talking about how James Cameron should buy the rights and make another Terminator movie. Do you REALLY think he'd actually want to do that? I mean, hell, maybe he does. I sure haven't been keeping up on James Cameron interviews. But has he ever ACTUALLY said that he wants to do that? If he hasn't said that, thenI have a hard time imagining that he'd actually WANT to return to Terminator.

"It would also add the dramatic effect of somebody from the future arriving at the present without any kind of weapons and making the take out of a terminator so much harder."
<p>
Yeah, I think that's the real explanation. It's simply a plot contrivance. If it hadn't been there, people would have said, "But why the hell haven't this robot and this soldier brought back advanced weapons?" And Cameron knew that if he DID try to have "ray guns", it would have given the movie a straight-to-video feel, especially on that budget, and it would have meant that the movie was classified squarely as a "science fiction movie", which of course it is anyway, but it doesn't FEEL like it belongs in a genre ghetto, and it certainly wasn't marketed that way. So I would argue that it was very much a justified contrivance.

Hell, if you had asked ME if the future had changed after T2, I would have said "yes" too. It was only later that I started thinking that I had initially been just plain wrong. And yes, Terminator 2 certainly gives the IMPRESSION that the future/past can be changed, but I'm just working under the idea that there's no indication that that can ACTUALLY happen. Because if we accept the first movie, then it stands to reason that no one in Terminator 2 should be ABLE to do anything that will change the future. Looking at Terminator 2, no one actually DID anything that could change the future (though I would have to see the movie again, just to be clear about this). And the characters are untrustworthy. When they are running around THINKING that they are changing the future, we really have no reason to BELIEVE that they know what the hell they are doing. So yeah...I didn't "realize" that Terminator 2 is consistent with The Terminator until years later. And as you say, maybe I AM being too generous. And maybe James Cameron's intent WAS that they changed the future. Regardless of that, I just think it's possible to interpret the movie as being consistent with The Terminator, even if that DOES go against Cameron's intent. And I think I simply PREFER that interpretation. Since, as you've pointed out, the other interpretation (even if it's the "correct" one) results in the movie just not making sense.

So he can do the next logical step in fucking up this franchise and make a whole Terminator movie in Mo-Cap. Why he fuck not? After allowing McG to make a Terminator movie, quality garantee is the least of the troubles for the peopel responsible for the Terminator franchise. Let's jus fuck it all up beyond any recognition by having Zemeckis fuck it all up with his Mo-Cap toys. Why the fuck not?

u can bet your ass that Cameron would desperately want to make a 3D Terminator.
<p>but despite the above,its a fact that Cameron wanted to make a T3 in the 90s,but he waited for the technology to mature.Then the Titanic happened,the producers of
the Terminator franchise couldnt wait any longer,and they proceeded without Cameron.
<p>I will say it again,its a big mistake for Cameron if he wont buy the rights now that the has the chance,regardless if he is going to make a movie or not in the future.

i am sorry but your debate is meaningless,since none of the two movies state clearly if in their universe the timeline is one and only or there are infinite parallel timelines.
<p>in other words,if Sarah is killed before she gives birth to John,does this change affect the one and only timeline and the future is recreated or it jumpstarts a new one with a different future,parallel to the original one where Skynet has indeed lost the war as it was going to (regardless its time-travel loop)?
<p>And u know what? according to the modern physics u cant have a time-travel until the first moment u create and power your time-machine.when u do this,then all the time-travels u will do,the farthest they can go in,will always be that moment u powered on your time-machine for the first time and not further than that.ok yeah its possible to use the wormholes in space,to bypass that limitation,but i cant imagine a naked Reese traveling through a wormhole in space and arrive in LA 1985...

i am sorry but your debate is meaningless,since none of the two movies state clearly if in their universe the timeline is one and only or there are infinite parallel timelines.
<p>in other words,if Sarah is killed before she gives birth to John,does this change affect the one and only timeline and the future is recreated or it jumpstarts a new one with a different future,parallel to the original one where Skynet has indeed lost the war as it was going to (regardless its time-travel loop)?
<p>And u know what? according to the modern physics u cant have a time-travel until the first moment u create and power your time-machine.when u do this,then all the time-travels u will do,the farthest they can go in,will always be that moment u powered on your time-machine for the first time and not further than that.ok yeah its possible to use the wormholes in space,to bypass that limitation,but i cant imagine a naked Reese traveling through a wormhole in space and arrive in LA 1985...

"I fully understand the logic of Terminator's time travel."
<p>
Your posts suggest otherwise.
<p>
Re: The Terminator and T2:"They're different themes". Uh-huh. Sure. Just like the Ptolemaic and Copernican theories are "different themes". Ummm, no, they are *logically incompatible*.
<p>
One story makes clear that we are operating in a narrative universe in which there is only a single timeline and where time travel only completes a loop, and never changes anything. The other story (at least, your preferred interpretation of it, and mine) says that time travel opens the door to human free will to alter the future. That isn't just "a different theme", it's a logical contradiction. That's radically different from The Empire Strikes back - all that's overturned there is Luke's previous subjective understanding of the universe, not the actual rules of the universe.

"since none of the two movies state clearly if in their universe the timeline is one and only"
<p>
I would politely request an interpretation of The Terminator in which there are "infinite parallel timelines" but in which the use of the photograph of Sarah still is highlighted as a meaningful motif.

"I just think it's possible to interpret the movie as being consistent with The Terminator, even if that DOES go against Cameron's intent."
<p>
No argument there.
<p>
I wonder what a geek survey would say these days re: the question of whether or not people felt, on balance, that the future had been altered in T2. I reckon that a survey conducted in the 90s would have skewed overwhelmingly towards "yes".
<p>
Related issue: a friend of mine once observed that as he had seen T2 before The Terminator, the first time he saw the original movie he was already geared up to a "multiple timelines" narrative universe and saw the movie through that lens. It was only later that he rewatched the film, and saw that, as a stand-alone text, it is quite clearly a single timeline narrative universe.

Thanks for that bit of info, I'm glad Cameron did actually contemplate the issue. I too have in the past just rationalised it in the way you have.
Yeah its certainly a conceit added to improve the story (and get Dr Silberman excited) but when so make rules in a story they should be consistent.
I've also thought about a Cronenberg flesh bag of weapons, it would be quite hilarious on film!
Cameron has definitely said in the past that he wasn't interested in making T3 or at least not on someone elses terms. I do wonder how he feels about the franchise though and if he has any desire now to protect it or if he just thinks its too late now anyway.

I'm going to answer you sensibly, since I think I've been a bit rude to you. I'm sorry, I can't help it. You write like a patronising cunt. <p>
I understand the logic of Terminator. Time is an unchangeable loop. <p>
I understand T2's suggested possible contradiction in that logic. We can make our own fate. Or maybe we can't. <p>
If you accept that possibility in the second, it undermines the first film - for you! <p>
But not for me. I'm not sitting there stroking my student beard gnashing over that dilemma. I enjoy them both as brilliant sci-fi action movies that explore their situations intelligently. <p>
Both films can co-exist in the same universe - in my head - because I don't give a shit that much about the possible contradiction. In fact, the possible contradiction makes it more mind-fuckingly cool. Because time travel, paradoxes, alternate realities, skewed timelines, quantum theories are all mind-fuckingly cool. <p>
T3 is shit. Not just because it fucks up the continuity of the first two films but because it's also just shit. <p>
Salvation I haven't seen. <p>
I've enjoyed a lot of sci-fi for a long time, and read and seen a lot of great fiction with loads of logical contradictions (Silver Age Marvel comics, for example), and while some of it bothers me, I don't really care, because the stories were great. I enjoyed them. <p>
And I'd love to enjoy another Cameron Terminator too. <p>
That's all I've been saying. But feel free to carry on farting on about the same laboured point.

Since you love time travel so much, you and Veebeeyes should take a trip back to 1992 and carry on your tired bullshit back then, when it was actually relevant. It's been 17 fucking years since anyone had this conversation about those films.

and so it's true for The Terminator and Terminator 2. Only in that in Twelve Monkeys and The Terminator, the future happens already pre-deterimed with the influence that the time travel will do to the present, while in Terminator 2, in a departure from The Terminator, the future can be changed.

"could u rephrase your question pls"
<p>
Certainly.
<p>
If Cameron and Wisher had intended that the audience should be able to interpret what they were seeing in The Terminator as being one of many possible parallel or branching timelines, why would they have shown you the photograph of Sarah that Reese has in the future, and then shown it to you once again at the end of the movie when the kid takes the polaroid of Sarah at the desert gas station? The use of the photo seems to serve the very specific purpose of putting a watermark on the "two timelines" to demonstrate that they are, in fact, one and the same. It is a very specific narrative manoeuvre.

if u r uncomfort with infinite parallel timelines,then replace that with infinite possible timelines.what that means? it simply means that if Skynet succeeds with his plan,then he creates a parallel timeline where he is the sole victor.But his own timeline hasnt changed or vanished,it continues as it is with him losing the war.That leads to the assumption that the time loop which is created in the first movie,is a reaction to an action (Skynet thinking,creating and using the time travel),its an event who does have a beginning.But it isnt a loop that connects two points in the same timeline,but rather two points in two different timelines.IMHO thats more realistic,even in our own reality (until some new einstein says different)
<p>Now if the timeline is one and only,then nothing is changed.Everything is as it is,the time loop is pre-existent,the fate is predifined,it isnt the result of an action.Skynet can not win the war,regardless of his time-travel plan because:
<p>1.if he succeeds to kill Sarah,he wont be born since there will be no resistance,thus no reason to kill Sarah,thus no reason to make time-travel,thus no dead terminator caught in that press,thus no super microchip which lead to his birth.
2.if he fails to kill Sarah,there will be a resistance,thus the reason to make the time-travel to kill Sarah,thus the dead terminator in the press,thus the microchip which leads to his birth.But again he loses the war,so his plan is in vain.
<p>DONT forget that the loop is in the same timeline,it connects two points in the same timeline.which means point A affects point B,and point B affects A.in other words,the small timeline AB can be changed (by killing or not Sarah) BUT the timeline after the small AB remains the same: humanity survives and Skynet loses,the fate remains the same.
ps.Btw did u know that Cameron was studying physics in his university,but finally his love for the cinema won him over? the man is 100% geek,he knows his stuff.

as i already said,the photograph doesnt give us a clue of the nature of the Terminator universe.It can connect points A and B in the same timeline,or it can connect point A from timeline 1 with point B from timeline 2.
<p>so since we dont know how the timeline works in the movie,its a bit pointless to claim what is the canonical consequences of timetravel in the movie.we can debate,but nobody can claim that he is objectively right.

"Both films can co-exist in the same universe - in my head - because I don't give a shit that much about the possible contradiction."
<p>
Well, yes, that is clearly a big difference. I don't enjoy retcons. If somebody made a "sequel" to Citizen Kane in which it was asserted that Kane was in fact an immortal gun-toting android from Mars, it might be a terrific action film, or even pose a whole raft of new heavyweight themes, but I just wouldn't be able to accept it as a sequel.
<p>
Seems to me that you may (?) be enjoying T2 as a kind of "what if?" story, i.e. what if we had a universe that was somewhat like The Terminator (robots, future war, time travel etc.), but was one in which the future COULD be changed? Set in some kind of orthogonal reality. A bit like the way that the Highlander TV series can't possibly be set in the same narrative universe as the original movie (Connor MacLeod clearly won, in 1985), but it takes the ideas and sets out a new story in a very SIMILAR universe. Takes the ideas and runs off in a new direction with some new characters to keep the fun going. But like T2, it ends up as a weird mish-mash because it masquerades as a true sequel rather than the alternate take on the universe that it really is.
<p>
"You write like a patronising cunt."
<p>
I *am* a patronising cunt. But I reserve it for special occasions.

"as i already said,the photograph doesnt give us a clue of the nature of the Terminator universe.It can connect points A and B in the same timeline,or it can connect point A from timeline 1 with point B from timeline 2."
<p>
I invite an example of the latter.

with the two terminator movies.in the first we have the classical pre-existent, timeloop example which always lead to a predefined future in the same timeline ,and in the second movie he uses the example of the unlimited possible futures created by a single altered point in the orgiinal timeline.

my point is that the photograph doesnt give us a clue for the nature of the timeline in the T universe.u can freely follow your opinion,u can be wrong or right,i may agree or disagree with you,we can talk but there is no proof beyond any doubt which shows us the nature of the timeline.thats my point.jesus.

"Btw did u know that Cameron was studying physics in his university,but finally his love for the cinema won him over? the man is 100% geek,he knows his stuff."
<p>
1. This isn't really about physics, it's about metaphysics.
<p>
but
<p>
2. Cameron was actually a philosophy major, although he had studied natural sciences quite a bit. So you may have been right that "he knows his stuff", albeit perhaps not for the reasons you were thinking of.
<p>
Regardless, never accept an argument from authority. His texts should stand and fall on their own merits.
<p>
There are plenty of problems with your branching timelines hypothesis above, btw, wrt The Terminator. Not the least of which is: if an act of time travel creates a new parallel branch, then what ought to happen in The Terminator is that a second branch is created in 1984 with a terminator and no Reese, and a third branch is created with Reese and no terminator.
<p>
Also, to reiterate, if we're watching a new version of history, it ends up, after massive disruptions (futuristic robots attacking Sarah, future soldiers getting her pregnant) with her ending up at a mexican gas station with the light just *so* and her hair just *so*. So explain to me how that photo came to be taken in a different branch of history where there were no robots and no Reese. What was Sarah doing there? How did the photo end up *precisely identical*? Please keep in mind what we know about chaos/butterfly effects in complex systems when you construct your hypothetical story of the "first" (or at least the "earlier") timeline.

"there is no proof beyond any doubt"
<p>
Agreed. But I would say that there is proof beyond *reasonable* doubt. The only hypothesis that works is to say that we are watching a second version of history in which, by ASTONISHING COINCIDENCE, Sarah just happens to have a photo taken of her that is precisely identical with one that was taken of her in the "first timeline".
<p>
Also, if we are watching a new timeline, then Reese was not John's father in the original timeline. So whoever Sarah is pregnant with now, it clearly isn't John Connor The Saviour Of Humanity (even if Sarah calls him John, this must be somebody new). That guy does not exist in the new timeline. So Skynet has achieved its aims, and the entire struggle was all for nothing.
<p>
If you want to say that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of The Terminator (the photo looks the same by pure coincidence, and the original John Connor has been wiped out in the new timeline), you are free to do that. You are also free to say that at the end of Citizen Kane, Kane is trying to whisper "milk dud" but is senile and gets it wrong, so it comes out as "rosebud", and that he has no memory of any childhood sledge. You have latitude to make that interpretation: it is POSSIBLE. I would consider it to be utterly perverse and borderline insane, but it IS possible.

I don't know why guys are so fussed about this. It is done. Get creative, do something new. It pisses me off the way guys just want to thieve off good franchises because their brains are smaller than tiny peanuts. What the fuck happened to the C word? CREATIVITY! Terminator is done, it's in the history books and part of cinema hall of fame.
HH

In terms of canonical narrative, perhaps, although as other people have observed, we never really got to see a good portrayal of the actual future war. One thing I *would* like the rights for would be to make further (good) video games. Which for me would be set in the future war period. Would love to flesh out that background narrative in video game form, with strategy and/or FPS games. Perhaps something Left 4 Dead-ish where you can get to play as Skynet drones as well as human resistance, each one with its own specific sensory modalities and skills.
<p>
On the strategy front, I always really liked the concept from the background notes to T2 wherein Cameron had conceived that most of the human resistance had been from the southern hemisphere, because Skynet had concentrated its nuclear bombardment on the much more heavily populated north. Would be fun setting a campaign in South America, or Australia/NZ.

Love all the contributions to this discussion, and I thought >slkboxrman< was on-target with his original post. >Kaitain< I think you're analysis, while well thought out, is too critical of the real premise of this franchise (one of my fav sci-fi worlds, btw).<br><br>
The real premise of Terminator is to make a fucking cool action movie with robots from the future, and have Arnold on the big screen. That's it. Making our heads hurt is just a fun bi-product of a great action movie franchise! Because of time travel, our love of sci-fi turns a shoot-em-up movie into something we can talk about 20 years later. It's great!<br><br>
But being judgemental of other people's interpretations of time travel is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I've REALLY enjoyed reading thoughts from >veebeeyes< and >The GD Batman< and >AsimovLives<, these are the people that have made me read these TB's for about 10 years.<br><br>
My opinion on time travel may be pretty simple, but for the movies I think works. Skynet keeps sending Terminators back in time because they don't know if the original plan worked? Right? I mean, Arnie is sent back to kill all the Sarah Connors he can, but has no way of communicating back to Skynet in the future if he was successful. I think Skynet has no way to know if the future John Connor will simply vanish if the Terminator kills Sarah, but they're giving it a shot b/c they can. And that's the very same reason they send back the T-1000 and the T-X too.<br><br>
Finally, I really like all the movies in this series. I enjoy them for fun action sci-fi films, and as long as future rights-holders make a valid attempt at the continuity, the universe is a great one to revisit with sequels. The concept of humans and machines working together is definitely the way Cameron intended this to go, as it's clear from Sarah's line in T2 "if a machine, a Terminator, can learn the value of human life, maybe we can too". The great TV show was exploring this divide among Skynet itself, and I think "Salvation" opened that door with the great character of Marcus.<br><br>
With time travel, we can debate and have fun guessing "what would happen", but the point of each film (or TV show) is just enjoying the experience presented to us. Every incarnation is essentially it's own timeline, and the creators can make their own assumptions about how the characters reached their current state-of-mind. It seems the only constant is that Judgement Day happens, and that's more to do with humankind's mistakes as a civilization than Skynet sending Terminators back in time.

these are the people that have made me read these TB's for about 10 years.<br><br>
My opinion on time travel may be pretty simple, but for the movies I think works. Skynet keeps sending Terminators back in time because they don't know if the original plan worked? Right? I mean, Arnie is sent back to kill all the Sarah Connors he can, but has no way of communicating back to Skynet in the future if he was successful. I think Skynet has no way to know if the future John Connor will simply vanish if the Terminator kills Sarah, but they're giving it a shot b/c they can. And that's the very same reason they send back the T-1000 and the T-X too.<br><br>
Finally, I really like all the movies in this series. I enjoy them for fun action sci-fi films, and as long as future rights-holders make a valid attempt at the continuity, the universe is a great one to revisit with sequels. The concept of humans and machines working together is definitely the way Cameron intended this to go, as it's clear from Sarah's line in T2 "if a machine, a Terminator, can learn the value of human life, maybe we can too". The great TV show was exploring this divide among Skynet itself, and I think "Salvation" opened that door with the great character of Marcus.<br><br>
With time travel, we can debate and have fun guessing "what would happen", but the point of each film (or TV show) is just enjoying the experience presented to us. Every incarnation is essentially it's own timeline, and the creators can make their own assumptions about how the characters reached their current state-of-mind. It seems the only constant is that Judgement Day happens, and that's more to do with humankind's mistakes as a civilization than Skynet sending Terminators back in time.

"The real premise of Terminator is to make a fucking cool action movie with robots from the future, and have Arnold on the big screen. That's it."
<p>
You see it as, essentially, a Bond movie with robots: plot irrelevant, cool action the raison d'etre.
<p>
I felt that this was what T2 was. But I never, ever felt that about The Terminator. That movie is on a whole different level. It is indeed the Citizen Kane of time travel movies.
<p>
One reason why I have never seen it as an action movie: its tone is not bombastic, or celebratory, or "fuck, yeah, this is cool!" On the contrary, its primary emotion is one of heartbreaking loss. Pay attention to the musical score in particular. You have a movie in which the (at the time) lowbrow muscleman Arnold Schwarzennegger runs around shooting stuff up and punching through windshields. So what's the main musical theme? Wham! Bam! Action! Thrills!
<p>
Right?
<p>
No. It's a lament. There is the thrubbing heartbeat of menace, sure, but the main melody is one of sadness, sorrow. Even at the end of the movie, imminent sorrow and loss is what awaits. That is extremely unusual for an action movie. (And indeed the only Bond movie that has ever tried this was OHMSS.)
<p>
It's also one of the few movies in which the love scene is not a throwaway moment, but rather the very heart of the narrative.
<p>
That's why I don't agree with your interpretation. Not for the original movie, anyway. Cameron, Wisher and Hurd were aiming much higher, and hit the bullseye.

the act of time travel,could create infinite branches not only the three u described.in fact the whole terminator1 movie is the alternate timeline,not the original one,which explains the photograph.all these things happened in teh alternate timeline,but in the original one skynet has not think of the time-travel plan,has not been built by a broken microchip,but from the vision of a scientist,Reese is not John;s father.BUT when Skynet thinks of the time-travel plan,exactly at that moment u enter the altered timeline2.
<p>have u seen Star Trek 4 Voyage Home? do u remember the scene where Scottie tells to the guy in the past how to make the super plastic? its exactly the same situation.in fact there is a deleted scene when Spock was answering the questions in the computer at the beginning of the film,where the computer asks who created the super plastic and the answer was that doctor guy from the 20st century.

"But being judgemental of other people's interpretations of time travel is ridiculous."
<p>
Why is it ridiculous, when the narrative makes it explicit what the rules in play are? I mean, if in the next Superman film, it's asserted that Superman can turn invisible and walk through walls, and people objected, would you criticize them as being "ridiculous" on the grounds that it's a fantasy movie, and that so long as the action set pieces are cool, that should be all we care about?
<p>
Consistency matters. Plot logic matters. Retconning matters.
<p>
if you think that The Terminator doesn't signpost quite clearly that we're in a single timeline universe, if you think that "all time travel hypotheses are as good as each other, so, hey, who knows, really?" it seems to me like you're just not looking or thinking hard enough. Saying that you can interpret it how you like, use any time travel model you like, is a cop-out. Just because time travel doesn't exist in the real world doesn't mean you can accept any shitty logic you like in a time travel story. Set out your rules and use them. We don't really have flying men from Krypton, but that doesn't mean that you can just invent new powers for Superman on the fly to suit your sequel narrative.

"in fact the whole terminator1 movie is the alternate timeline,not the original one,which explains the photograph"
<p>
How???
<p>
Reese has travelled back from the "original" timeline to help create this "alternative" timeline. Where did he get the photo from in the original timeline? Where was Sarah when it was taken? What was she doing?

something,about T1 being the alternate timeline.that might the most plausible one explanation.But as the photo is concerned,you keep thinking that the timeline changes to the new one when Reese travels back to time.No the timeline changes when Skynet thinks of the plan.What happens then is the infinite branches and in one of those is the T1 movie.
<p>btw i had the same talkback in the imdb forums about the time-travel consequences in the Timecop movie.there the plothole was about how Van Damme didnt have the memories of his past self of the altered timeline.

Is indeed chock-full of holes. But it doesn't have any pretensions of being a cerebral work. It really IS a sci-fi Bond movie. A fun, throwaway popcorn movie. The Terminator was always a LOT more than that. You could propose showing TT at an arthouse cinema without anyone laughing at the idea. No way you could get away with showing Timecop.

i have the personal belief that if we are talking about multiple timelines,then i personally envision the original timeline as something where Skynet never thought of time-travel.when he thinks of it,then we have the infinite timelines,the one where he manages to make time-travel possible,the other where he cant create time-travel,the other where he is destroyed before he sends his terminator back to time,infinite possible alterations.u see? u might envision the original timeline differently,no problem with that,thats my point after all we can talk for a long time about this movie,but nothings is final with it.

(Sighs.)
<p>
Yeah, you hear this suggestion a lot. I have already addressed above why that is a laughably bad hypothesis. I mean, I would write a response, but I already did, pre-emptively, above, in my posts labelled "Cameron" and "No proof beyond doubt".
<p>
To accept that hypothesis would demonstrate:
<p>
1. A total lack of understanding of the behaviour of complex systems (the chances of her having the EXACT same photo taken are INFINITESSIMALLY small, so you are essentially asking for a seventeen trillion to one dice roll deus ex machina to support your hypothesis)
<p>
2. You also have to be happy with the idea that Reese's mission to save "John Connor(1)" has failed. All he's done is to ensure that Sarah will name her first child John, but this will now be a completely different person from the guy who saved the world. That guy has been wiped out of the new timeline: Skynet has won.
<p>
Are you telling me that this is how you interpret the movie? A seventeen trillion to one coincidence creates the same photo at the end (meaning the photo that has been shown to us twice actually has zero significance in the story), and that Skynet has indeed wiped out the existence of John Connor? That's what you are going to have to commit to in order to keep your hypothesis in play.

worse than the mother of all time-travel plotholes: Back to the Future 2. and that because the movie by itself dont let for theoretical solutions of its time-travel concept.the movie in the second half negates,the happenings of its first half and the rules of the first movie.jeez.

in the alternate timeline,which is the movie.i didnt say the opposite.but it doesnt have a meaning in the original timeline,where no time-travel has happened.and i ask u again,if no travel happened what would be the meaning of the photo then?

i rethinked the matter with the photograph,and i concluded that u r right.It is a sole timeline with a pre-existent time loop.thats a more beautiful,logical and plausible explanatation than the multiple timelines theory.u r 100% right,and i am wrong.

Nicely said...the first movie was more than just an action flick. I was a young lad at the time and loud guns was the most thrilling stimulator to me. I'll respectively re-state my opinion. Simply, I believe getting too engrossed in the logic of time travel overlooks the objective of a movie experience. For me, if a film created an escape and a sequel in general didn't completely disregard the previous efforts and insult the audience...then it's objective was achieved.<br><br>
Your example of Superman was hilarious! You're right, that would be awful...yet, in some ways that happened with Superman 2 and the invention of powers by the new director. However, changes to the "laws of the universe" are even worse in something like Superman because of the non-film source material.<br><br>
In the Terminator films, the creators have the power to establish their own truths. If you feel those "laws" were broken to the point where each subsequent movie is flawed, I respectfully disagree. However, I admire your thoughts and would rather have you and veebeeyes behind the script of any future Terminator movie! Just keep making the stunts and action bigger and better for me!

For me, time travel was simply a plot device for the experience of a fun sci-fi movie. While the logic of the photograph seems to create a loop philosphy as I think Kaitain demonstrates, it also prevents deeper expansion into the universe as a film franchise.<br><br>
I feel the loop discussion becomes a "chicken or the egg" debate. JC understood this, and thankfully decided to move on by creating good enough arguments, IMO, why Judgement Day still happens. Again, that's what I feel is the constant and why the series is dramatic as a sci-fi franchise.<br><br>
I like the idea that the original John Connor was from a different father, but could have still been leader of the resistence. The fact Skynet tries to kill him is actually the machines trying to kill humanity, and that is what won't die...not John Connor.

I hate it when people agree with me on things. It makes me all nervous and on edge. (Bites thumbnail.)
<p>
"However, changes to the "laws of the universe" are even worse in something like Superman because of the non-film source material."
<p>
Yes, I guess it is interesting that there is certainly a perceived difference when one feels that the new material is "owned" by the person who created the original material. If it hadn't been Cameron himself that co-wrote T2, would we be less generous towards the story, or at least less inclined to treat it as canonical by default? Can somebody "mess up" their own story/creation, or is it automatically canonical? Well, I guess in the case of George Lucas, quite a number of people felt that he'd messed up his own material. (Can something become so beloved that it feels like it is in public ownership and that even the creator and legal owner doesn't have the moral right to do certain things with it?)

"it also prevents deeper expansion into the universe as a film franchise."
<p>
Another interesting issue. I dunno, for myself, I certainly wanted to see much more stuff set in this universe, but I personally would have been perfectly happy to see "tales of the future war". But I guess it is questionable how commercially viable a story will be if it is accepted that the final outcome is already known. Having said that, I found Apollo 13 pretty gripping. And you could have had dozens of individual stories whose local outcome was in doubt (will this attack succeed? will this character survive?) even if final victory in the war was a given. If these kinds of tales didn't offer us narrative tension, nobody would ever make World War 2 movies.

I like to believe there is an original timeline where niether John Connor nor the photo exist. In this timeline, the humans are losing to the machines. It is the humans who come up with the idea of altering the past. THey send kyle reese back to stop judgement day, but he is pursued by a t-800. Reese meets and falls in love with Sarah and impregnates her, tells her about judgemnt day, etc. Then he is killed by the terminator at a cyberdyne factory while he is trying to complete his mission. This creates a new timeline where Sarah goes into hiding and teaches John about the future and how to prepare. Even though this isn't the same timeline as what we have after t1, it is likely that Sarah would have been in hiding in mexico at the same place that she was at the end of t1, when the kid takes her picture. Thus we now have the t-1 future, where john leads the resistance and reverses the roles from the prime timeline.

i just read your rambling, dismissive, condescending, uppity, and annoyingly long response to my post...it seems u devoted a huge part of yourself to defending what is , honestly, someones imagination....terminator is not real, time travel is not real or even logically able to be dumped into 3 categories as u say...im not gonna badmouth u as some have here but ill say one thing. u seem to be hinging your whole theory on the picture, correct ? how does the picture prove anything? the picture could have existed even if there was no terminator. yes she could have been on the road for any # of reasons. her son could have still had that picture in the future even if there was no terminator...connor gave reese the picture so he could identify sarah, not because reese is his father...the terminator did not hav this picture, hence its the reason he was going down the list of sarah connors in the phone book...and yes maybe the original connor did kill himself when he sent reese back, he would have no idea that his soudier frm the future would fall for his mom...connor is connor regardless...a symbol, a figurehead for mankind to rally behind....and by your "logic" if by chance john connor in the future fails to send reese back, then he would simply go POOF into nonexistence...it doesnt make any sense. its just a theory, all time travel ideas are hypothesis, there is no science, there are no 3 categories that fiction tells time story stories in. and even if there were only 3 categories, whats to say someone cant come up with a new time travel idea that is different from convention? is it sacrilege ? its a new idea..its a different interpretation. you should never close your mind to how other people interpret things and slam them down with your own highbrow opinion because u think youre right...and if you are really this uptight that this sounds unacceptable or an unatainable goal then u need help....get laid, get a life, or get a gun and end your suffering at the hands of us "idiots" that cant elevate to your illustrious level.

To answer your question regarding the box-office returns (if someone else hasn't already), most studios want a ratio on the return of investment to be somewhere around 3:1 - for every dollar the studio spends, they get three back. Because the production cost was over $200 million, the expectation was that the film would make 600 million back in order to break even. Anything above that 3:1 ratio is considered profitable and then the discussions of sequels can begin.

Doesn't Reece say he is from what possible future, from our perspective to the shrink in the police station?
He then caveats that with he doesn't know tech stuff.
So, it seems like Cammeron purposely left this open.
The concept of destiny and free will are not mutually exclusive. In fact the common theme of being in "default" of one's destiny requires both to exist.
Nearly every hero's journey story has this theme. Luke is destined to be a Jedi, and Neo the one. However, the when, how, and even if aren't predetermined. The uncertain but anticipated outcome is destiny in the sense that it is most in tune with either the escence of the characters or moral harmony/balance of the narrative universe.

Why wouldn't Skynet simply send a T-1000 back to 1984 to the exact point where the first Terminator was defeated, Kyle Reese is dead, and Sarah Conner is conveniently wounded and barely mobile. Hell, if Reese were still alive at this point there is no way in hell he could've stopped the T-1000! Obviously Skynet has "detailed files" on its origin and therefor could figure out when and where the Terminator was destroyed and raped for its tech. I don't see why Skynet would send another Terminator to a much later time period where no one knows where John Conner is. Hell, send several T-1000's back to 1984 since obviously Kyle's theory of "no one else comes through" was shot to hell with T2!

"how does the picture prove anything? the picture could have existed even if there was no terminator. yes she could have been on the road for any # of reasons. her son could have still had that picture in the future even if there was no terminator...connor gave reese the picture so he could identify sarah, not because reese is his father"
<p>
Again, this displays a lack of understanding of butterfly effects in complex systems. The idea that the EXACT SAME PHOTO could have been taken just because Sarah could have "been on the road for any number of reasons"...what you are proposing is theoretically possible, but the chances are *unbelievably tiny*. It's pretty much equivalent to saying that a major plot point in a movie in which two (unrelated) characters happen to have the exact same fingerprint works just fine because "you could have the exact same fingerprint as someone else for any number of reasons". Yeah, you could. But you WON'T. Believe me. You are grasping at statistical straws.
<p>
The rest of your posting...bla bla bla, "u really smell dude" etc. (Waves hand.) Not interested. Sorry.

"Doesn't Reece say he is from what possible future, from our perspective to the shrink in the police station? He then caveats that with he doesn't know tech stuff."
<p>
Yeah, and I think that's the vital pointL in this world, nobody knows nuthin'. Not Reese, not Skynet...probably not even John Connor, for certain. He must suspect that he's in a loop universe, but he doesn't necessarily know. He gives Sarah (via Reese) a pep talk, and tells her "the future is not set", but he's not an authority on time travel. Only we, the audience, are privileged enough to be shown the truth of what's going on.
<p>
Trust the tale, not the teller.

"and by your "logic" if by chance john connor in the future fails to send reese back, then he would simply go POOF into nonexistence...it doesnt make any sense"
<p>
The problem is that you are trying to crowbar bona fide free will into a deterministic universe, where it won't fit. You might as well ask, "But what if my grandfather never met my grandmother? I'd simply go POOF into nonexistence!" Yeah, you would, but that would never happen, because your grandfather DID meet your grandmother. Similarly - and this is the crucial thing - in an STL looping time story universe, the entire history of the universe has always existed. The "present" is just a subjective point of view. Every moment exists simultaneously. It's like a huge, static four dimensional sculpture. The people who live in a particular "slice" of the sculpture use a part of that slice's state space as memories which encode partial details of "the past". For almost all people, "the past" is the stuff on the left of that slice (metaphorically speaking). But for Kyle Reese in 1984, unusually, part of his memories, taking up a small piece of that 3D slice in 1984, encode a lossy representation of stuff to the RIGHT of that slice. But in 1984, 2029 already exists. Everything exists simultaneously. It's just that subjectively, most people only have access to a tiny part of the full 4D sculpture.
<p>
Conventional thinking says that 2029 can't exist before 1984. You have to throw that thinking away. The subjective illusion is a bit like thinking when halfway through a DVD that "the ending hasn't happened yet". From your subjective point of view, this seems correct. And yet if you pop the disc out, it's all there, sitting statically in your hand, motionless, unchanging. The ending already exists. And the disc only seems to become something dynamic, changing and uncertain when you play it in a DVD player.
<p>
That's the deal in The Terminator. Even in 1984, the 2029 part of the DVD already exists. That means that John Connor's decisions in 2029 already exist. That means that he is able to ponder the decision to send back Reese, there is never any doubt as to the decision he will make. It's already on the DVD.

That should be
<p>
"That means that ALTHOUGH he is able to ponder the decision to send back Reese..."
<p>
Free will is an illusion...of sorts. It's still Connor who makes the decision, he's not coerced against his will, but his will itself is part of the 4D sculpture. To him it always feels like he could have made any decision, but to any meta-being on the outside of the sculpture, every decision he ever makes is already known.

"since before SALVATION's release, McG's been talking about a TERMINATOR 5 that would spill the franchise's future war into our time"
Dammit McG did you even watch the first 2? The war is in the future. We want FUTURE WAR against robots. Also, the third was the worst, but don't pat yourself on the back McG, thats not saying much

You've grown on me. You took the "pretentious cunt" comment in your stride and you taught me the word "Orthogonal". I think you're okay. <p>
You've also drawn me into this fucking debate about T1/T2 time travel. So here's what I think. What I really think! <p>
Terminator is a self-contained loop. It's obvious. It's cleverly done, but it's not some incredibly complex thing. The photo, like you said, is a water-mark to prove nothing has changed. Everything is happening exactly has it had in Reese's future. It's not some subtle clue. It's the punchline at the end of the movie. It's about as a loud as Charlton Heston finding the Statue of Liberty in Planet of the Apes. <p>
Everyone, there was no "other" John Connor. He's the only one. He was always going to be conceived by Kyle Reese. Sarah Connor is the right one. There was no other. That's why there's that photo of her. That's why it's exactly the same photo Reese has. Connor knew Reese was his father, that's why he sent him back. <p>
T2 doesn't implicitly show the future can be changed (we don't see a changed future, although we almost did), it's purposely ambiguous. So really, you should accept it as a true sequel. In fact, the addition of the Terminator's arm and chip conceiving Skynet is worthy alone of building on the pre-destiny concept. <p>
That said, even if T2 does allow the future to be altered (thus contradicting the internal logic of the first film), I still believe it's a true valid sequel, and I'll tell you why... <p>
Because it's not some ill thought-out, poorly-scripted retconning. It's intentional, as a plot device. It doesn't disregard the first film at all, it purposely subverts it. <p>
Cameron is a clever writer, especially of sequels. By setting up the unchangeable future of the first film, you watch T2 with the belief that John Connor is destined to become the saviour of mankind. It's unavoidable. Then, half-way through, they attempt to change that destiny. It's thematic. It's about challenging destiny instead of rising to it. It's a great conceit and it's worthy of a great sequel. <p>
Maybe they don't change anything. Maybe they do. It's irrelevant. It's about human spirit. <p>
And robots and machine guns.

"maybe the original connor did kill himself when he sent reese back, he would have no idea that his soudier frm the future would fall for his mom...connor is connor regardless"
<p>
I have absolutely no idea what that is supposed to mean. "The first Connor was X, the second Connor is Y. Connor is Connor regardless. X is Y. Black is white. QED."

Since you like coining that phrase too, let me put a metaphysical suggestion to T1/T2's supposed contradictions. <p>
T1 is a self-contained loop. Everything that happens in it was always going to happen. The Terminator and Reese were always going to go back and start things up. That is a pure timeline. Regardless of the fact that it involves time travel, there is no paradox. Everything is normal. <p>
But, in T2 something does happen that shouldn't happen. A second Terminator is sent back. "No one else comes through" has been ruptured. We are now in a potential paradox. And from here we're in unknown territory. <p>
Cameron has shifted the goalposts, not because he's a lazy writer or an idiot, but because he's having fun with the story. He's fucking with us.

Kaitlain: "If it hadn't been Cameron himself that co-wrote T2, would we be less generous towards the story?" <p>
Yes, I think so, because the story wouldn't have been so tight. It's clearly written by the same mind, meticulously understanding everything it's doing. It's almost anally precise (there's even a cut scene showing the the T1000 finding the box of tapes and the photo in John's room). Done by someone else it wouldn't be the same story - it wouldn't exist. That version of T2 only exists in this timeline! <p>
"Can somebody "mess up" their own story/creation, or is it automatically canonical?" <p>
George Lucas's prequels are a shambles for exactly the reasons you're unfairly maligning Cameron. Because his stories horribly retcon the originals. He seems to have no understanding or even memory of the plots of his original movies. <p>
Or even "metaphysical" understanding of his universe (the force etc...).

"It's about as a loud as Charlton Heston finding the Statue of Liberty in Planet of the Apes."
<p>
That's a great example. Much better than my Citizen Kane one: rejecting the single timeline hypothesis is like saying at the end of POTA, "Sure, but ANYONE could have built that statue, on ANY planet..."
<p>
I am intrigued but not yet sold on your subversion hypothesis, i.e. why you award it high marks. Are you saying that it wouldn't matter if T2 DID break the rules of the first movie, so long as it surprised you by doing so? That starts to make me think of Derrida for some reason...turning everything into a subversive gag.
(But, see, I don't like Derrida either...)

Please tell me you're not in the crowd of people who think the future wasn't changed in 12 monkeys, man! <BR><BR>
She stops him in the end. What is the point of that scene if it's just to fuck with you?<BR><BR>

"Are you saying that it wouldn't matter if T2 DID break the rules of the first movie, so long as it surprised you by doing so?" <p>
Breaking the rules of the first movie and subverting what we believe are the rules of the first movie are different things. Time seems utterly unchangeable in T1, but the heroes attempt to change that in T2 anyway. That's the story. That's why it's cool. <p>
In fact, Cameron probably created this contradiction purposely to have social-spastics like us discuss this over two decades later. <p>
It's all philosophical, wrapped up in shiny Stan Winston special effects. <p>
In fact, Greek mythology continually played on these themes - the ideas and believes in pre-destiny and trying to change them. <p>
Your mistake here is adherring too hard to the hard logic of the first film at the expense of the greater story of T1 and T2 together. <p>
And the awesome T3 that Cameron made in an alternate 1995 that we've all never seen.<p>

Sept. 30, 2009, 11:10 p.m. CST

by Eli_Cash

"That's what I'm talking about. There are more possibilities to the potential timelines than the films care to remotely delve into. That's fine with me though. As previously mentioned, the time travel stuff isn't the focal point of the films.
What I like about it not focusing on the time travel mumbo jumbo is that it focuses on the mythic part of a man fighting an unstoppable killing machine. Cameron could have given Reese and the T800 the ability to travel back with future guns and in clothing, but it is just so much more primal and dangerous if they have to come back naked and find clothing and weapons. Like Kyle Reese answered Sarah's question about what traveling through time was like, "it's like being born I guess."
We are all born naked."
One other reason why I like a version such as the one I outlined is that it doesn't have the same consequences as a causal loop in making John Connor some sort of self caused super messiah. In fact, under my version, it's Reese who's the hero. In the initial timeline, he was brave enough to go back, and John Connor was just a consequence of this. I'd kinda like to see a future war movie where this pays off for reese. The timeline has changed. Skynet cannot off connor by time travel, so reese is never sent back. Instead, maybe conor steps down after leading the resistance, and lets Reese lead the effort to rebuild civlization.

I agree Reece (admittedly) doesn't understand the physics of time travel in the terminator universe. However, I am assuming that his line about "one possible future from your perspective" is from a source that does understand those physics. If skynet built a time machine, you would have to assume they have at least some understanding of the underlying physics. Granted you could argue that skynet might and the resistance doesn't. Likewise you could argue Reece misinterpreted what was said to him, or was purposely mislead. You could also go further and suppose that skynet understood the mechanics of "moving" matter from one "time" slice to another, without knowing the dynamic or static linkages between those slices.
However, all those arguments follow a similar logic pattern to the argument that the picture in the begining COULD be different from picture at the end.
Given this is a fictional universe, and cameron uses Reece to provide us insight into the "future", Occam's razor would suggest his statements reflect Cammeron's envision rules.

I understand the concept of present and future/past as subjective perspectives of 4D structure.
However, why does that structure have to be "static"?
If you remove past/present and future from reality (lets assume it exists), and instead make them a coping mechanism of the observer, don't you also have to disgard or at least question traditionally models of casuality?
Wouldn't sequences of events be more like plucked guitar strings than drum beats?
These strings happen to vibrate in a way, which appears consistent to our sequential perception of time in the vast majority of cases. You would have to assume, that for time to be a useful perceptive framework it would have to work across bulk of proability space.
However, that doesn't mean these event strings are limited to only interacting in such a way.
Being the father of the man who sent you back in time, may be a perfectly consistent state. The paradox and arguments for multiple universes or predestination are just more coping mechanisms.
How would you explain paper folding, if your perception and physics only had 2 dimensions?

Anyway folks, I just got back from the alternate 1995 where I just watched Cameron's T3 again. I tried to bring back a copy, but it got lost in transportation. Complete with my clothes and the phase plasma rifle with 40 watt range. <p>
Anyway, it's fucking awesome. It starts in LA with the date August 29, 1997 on screen. We see John Connor at home, there's a knock at the door. He opens it and Arnie's T-800 is there. <p>
Connor falls back onto the hall floor, scrabbling to get away in slow-mo. He keeps saying "No, no, you're dead! We stopped it." <p>
Arnie: "You stapped nuttink. It begins." <p>
John's eyes widen in realisation. <p>
Arnie: "Come with me if you want to live."
Suddenly, the sky behind Arnie whites out in an atomic detonation as he smothers John. <p>
The metal titles clank shut, only this time it's not brushed steel, it's molten-hot. Basil Poledouris' theme blares out. The logo, Terminator Zero appears. The music has an added synthesiser backing sound which eventually emerges as laser fire. <p>
It now begins proper, in 2029...

Skynet can't send a T-1000 to 1984 for one simple reason...because there was no T-1000 in 1984. Meanwhile there WAS a T-800 in 1984 (as indicated by the photo), so Skynet can send only one T-800 back to 1984.

"Time seems utterly unchangeable in T1, but the heroes attempt to change that in T2 anyway. That's the story. That's why it's cool."
See, that's a large part of the reason why I favor the interpretation that T2 actually IS consistent with The Terminator and that they never stopped Judgement Day. Because I consider the actual time travel rules to be secondary to the characters. Granted, I still believe that T2 would have to be consistent with Terminator, and that changing the rules fucks with the original. However, as you said, it is about the HUMAN SPIRIT, and Cameron deliberately left it open-ended. The important thing is that the characters BELIEVE that they are changing the future. The important thing is the hope and determination of the characters. Even if they are on a set path, it does not FEEL that way to them, and they try to choose their own fate (even if they don't have a choice). THAT is the point. Stopping Judgement Day really DOESN'T MATTER, and that's why I prefer to think that they DIDN'T stop Judgement Day. The movie STILL WORKS even if the Stopping Judgement Day theme was only a "MacMuffin" or a red herring. But the alternative IS a sequel in which the original movie is invalidated. And what would be the reward? The suffering and determination and pain of the characters would be real REGARDLESS of whether or not the universe is deterministic. We might actually live in the same kind of universe NOW, but that realization really WOULDN'T MATTER in any kind of practical sense. The point is not the time travel, the point is the CHARACTERS and as you say, "the human spirit". That applies regardless of which interpretation we use for Terminator 2. So if very little would be GAINED by fucking up the universe by changing the rules in Terminator 2, then I prefer to go with the interpretation that says that Terminator 2 DOESN'T fuck up The Terminator. The determination of the characters is just as real, it's just that they are completely powerless to make any change. But that's really irrelevant if they actually changed anything. The movie isn't so much about time travel as it is about the human spirit. Kyle Reese didn't "change" anything either, but that doesn't make his actions any less heroic or compelling. And yeah, I have to admit that I originally did think that Terminator 2 was about them stopping Judgement Day. Kaitain is probably CORRECT in supposing that nearly everyone who saw Terminator 2 initially thought that Judgement Day has been stopped. It is also ENTIRELY POSSIBLE that we were all just plain WRONG. That we were maybe just focusing on the WRONG THING. That we were so concerned with whether or not Judgement Day was ACTUALLY stopped that we failed to fully realize the extent to which the movie isn't even really about that. 12 Monkeys was actually pretty goddamn predictable. It's pretty early on that the observant viewer realizes EXACTLY how it's going to end. That doesn't negate any of the pain or love or suffering that occurs in the movie. It just casts a more tragic tone over the whole film. It makes the whole thing just a bit more sad. Similarly, with Terminator 2, I think realizing that they CAN'T stop Judgement Day actually ADDS a thematic element that is just sort of tragically lovely. Kyle Reese, The Connors, and James Cole all TRIED to change things, and I like to think that they all failed miserably. That's really NOT THE POINT. The point was the journey of these sad doomed characters. At least in my personal interpretation. And yeah, I agree that this maybe wasn't James Cameron's intent. I don't KNOW his intent, and I'm not sure how much his intent actually MATTERS. Whatever his intent, the MOVIE still exists as an independent work of art. If I look at that work of art as being in a vaccuum, I STILL think the movie works better if Judgement Day is inevitable. And if I support that work of art by referring to the director's previous work (namely, The Terminator), then I'm going to be even MORE inclined to go with the interpretation that they didn't stop Judgement Day. He left it open to interpretation for a reason. I'm not sure what that reason is, but I guarantee that there WAS a reason. He left us with two very different possibilities for what happens next, but the POINT was the human spirit. That applies whichever interpretation you favor. So I'm going with the interpretaion that Terminator 2 is entirely consistent with Judgement Day and that the characters in T2 didn't change a goddamn thing.

Christ, you and Kaitlain are like fucking time-travel theory terminators. You will not stop until I get on my knees and suck the cock marked "T2 did not change the timeline." <p>
You say yourself, it's open to interpretation and you're not sure what the reason is. I'll tell you the reason. Because the message of the film is that we can be masters of our own destiny. If he showed us what happens in the future (either future), it seals that question of fate. <p>
Unlike the first film's message (which is about mankind's unlikely saviour Sarah Connor hurtling towards her unavoidable destiny), T2 ends, for the first time in the series, with nobody, ourselves included, knowing what the future brings. <p>
That's why Cameron didn't want to make another Terminator movie. Anything he said would affect that message. Cheapen it. <p>
Of course, he did make another one, T-Zero, in Earth 2's 1995. And the answer was that the protagonists didn't change anything. <p>
It was fucking awesome.

...instead of working so hard to insincerely kiss his ass.
The idiot thought that the right music and catch phrases were all he needed to do to please the hard core fans of the first 2.
What a complete dumbass. This fuckhead has NO BUSINESS making movies

In this respect we are very different. We agree with a LOT of things regarding the Terminator universe. But we strongly disagree when it comes to Terminator 2. Granted, I don't like Terminator 2 for several reasons, but I am of the impression that it is completely consistent with The Terminator. Kaitain takes the opposite stance. He says that Terminator 2 DOES fuck up the rules. If anything, I was agreeing with YOU, by stating that I think that Kaitain is sort of missing the mark when it comes to Terminator 2. But yeah, I agree that Terminator 2 did right by ending ambiguously. THAT works, and then people can freely INTERPRET the movie such that Judgement Day was stopped. You know, just like how the Connors thought that they stopped Judgement Day. I'm just saying that from an OBJECTIVE standpoint, we can make no such claim. We can surely make these kinds objective claims about the FIRST movie, but NOT the second. If we're going to talk about INCONSISTENCIES in McG's Terminator 4, and how that (along with just generally being bad) ruined the Terminator series, then I think it's fair to discuss exactly WHEN the series started turning to shit. Kaitain thinks that this happened in T2 with its obvious changing of the rules. I disagree with him strongly, and say that this didn't happ

In this respect we are very different. We agree with a LOT of things regarding the Terminator universe. But we strongly disagree when it comes to Terminator 2. Granted, I don't like Terminator 2 for several reasons, but I am of the impression that it is completely consistent with The Terminator. Kaitain takes the opposite stance. He says that Terminator 2 DOES fuck up the rules. If anything, I was agreeing with YOU, by stating that I think that Kaitain is sort of missing the mark when it comes to Terminator 2. But yeah, I agree that Terminator 2 did right by ending ambiguously. THAT works, and then people can freely INTERPRET the movie such that Judgement Day was stopped. You know, just like how the Connors thought that they stopped Judgement Day. I'm just saying that from an OBJECTIVE standpoint, we can make no such claim. We can surely make these kinds objective claims about the FIRST movie, but NOT the second. If we're going to talk about INCONSISTENCIES in McG's Terminator 4, and how that (along with just generally being bad) ruined the Terminator series, then I think it's fair to discuss exactly WHEN the series started turning to shit. Kaitain thinks that this happened in T2 with its obvious changing of the rules. I disagree with him strongly, and say that this didn't happen until Terminator 3. For the simple reason that in Terminator 2, BOTH interpretations are valid. While Terminator 3 answered this question OBJECTIVELY. There is no room for vagueness or personal interpretation, there is only what is, and What Is violates the rules clearly and objectively. In any case, you're also right on another point. If Cameron WERE to ever make another Terminator movie, that WOULD cheapen T2 by providing an objective and irrefutable answer to the question surrounding T2. Same way that T3 cheapened T2 by providing an answer to that question. I PREFER Terminator 2 being left open to interpretation, so that people can see in it what they want to. I think the movie probably works better that way.

I liked Salvation (unlike many), but I think TSCC was the true and most worthy successor to Terminator 2 under the stars. It was such an excellent show, and I built up a pretty strong emotional bond to the characters over its 2 seasons. Feces to those asshats at Fox for cancelling it! I want to see how it ends so bad that I might end up making a comic book to finish the story.

And at the same time not change.
<br>
How? <br>
Easy... <br>
<br>
T1 Character: The future is all a looping timeline that just repeats itself and cannot be drastically changed. Im sure of it.<br>
T2 Character: Hi, welcome to T2... btw, ready to go change the timeline?<br>
T1 Character: WTF Mate! Are you forgetting what i said in the first movie? <br>
T2 Character: No im not, thats because you did not have all the facts my friend. Simply put, you merely THOUGHT that time was on a loop... but its not. <br>
T1 Character: No way man, my science said that time was on a loop.<br>
T2 Character: Sorry man, your science is wrong. My science is newer and what was previously thought of as the truth has now been proven to be false.<br>
Sucks for you... BTW, the earth is not flat and it does not revolve around the sun.<br><br>
Where is your god NOW!

sure there are people who don't know how 12 Monkeys ended. There are also still many people who don't know that Kyle Reese was ALWAYS John Connor's father. What can I say? Sometimes, lots of people are just wrong. But I still contend that 12 Monkeys was pretty predictable. When I first saw it, I CLEARLY recognized Bruce Willis as being the mustached guy in the airport. They don't do a very good job of hiding that, and I don't think that they TRIED to. And once you realize that, it QUICKLY becomes very obvious where the story is heading.

you've got it the wrong way around. No one in the first two movies is trustworthy. No one has any reason to ACTUALLY know what's going to happen. This applies to Kyle Reese, John Connor, Sarah Connor, Good Arnold, Bad Arnold, or the T-1000. No one has any reason to know shit, and therefore we have to look BEYOND what the characters SAY. And the photograph in the first movie provides EXACTLY that kind of evidence. For all of how Kyle Reese talks about how that's only "one possible future", we have to DISCARD what he says and what he knows, because the photograph says otherwise and Kyle Reese is clearly just plain wrong.
Now apply this to Terminator 2. For every time that Good Arnold says "Terminating Miles Dyson may actually stop Judgement Day", you have to ask yourself how the fuck Good Arnold would know this. How would John Connor or Sarah Connor know this? They simply AREN'T reliable sources. We have to look at them and say "sorry, you're wrong" unless any evidence to the contrary is provided.

I like that phrase. That for me is a certainly a good description of the original.
<p>
"He says that Terminator 2 DOES fuck up the rules"
<p>
Well...I recognize that there is an inherent ambiguity at the end of T2. However, it is clear that the original script had the future changed. Cameron lopped off the ending, to leave it "open", but it carries the patina of its original intention throughout. At least, I think so. There is undeniably genuine latitude to interpret it as though nothing's changed. I just...hmmm, that seems like the less obvious interpretation to me.
<p>
The other thing I've never liked about T2 is the way that much of the core premise of the original movie appears to be undermined. In The Terminator we are told (through Reese, whom we assume is a reliable witness) that the terminator scheme was effected as Skynet's last, desperate roll of the die, and that "nobody goes home; nobody else comes through. It's just him and me."
<p>
Him and me...plus two other terminators in ten years' time. Hmmm.
<p>
Also...why this "elaborate scheme with the terminator"? Apparently because Skynet has no records. It doesn't know shit about shit. The only thing it has to go on is that John's mother's name was Sarah Connor, and that she lived in LA in 1984. That's it. That tiny sketch of detail seems to be the reason why John's MOTHER is targeted, and in the most sledgehammer manner (kill all the Sarah Connors in LA in 1984).
<p>
That doesn't really seem to fit with a Skynet that has time to send an additional, high tech terminator to strike at John Connor in LA in 1994. If they knew he was there then, why try this whack-ass plan killing his mother? That seems plain weird. I can accept the idea of a single terminator sent with a really broad mission brief to kill the real enemy in a totally indirect manner if you're basically throwing a Hail Mary pass with the enemy about to blow down your door. But that doesn't really make so much sense when you have time to send a second, much more advanced terminator with much better information to strike at your enemy directly.

"For all of how Kyle Reese talks about how that's only "one possible future", we have to DISCARD what he says and what he knows, because the photograph says otherwise and Kyle Reese is clearly just plain wrong. Now apply this to Terminator 2. For every time that Good Arnold says "Terminating Miles Dyson may actually stop Judgement Day", you have to ask yourself how the fuck Good Arnold would know this. How would John Connor or Sarah Connor know this? They simply AREN'T reliable sources. We have to look at them and say "sorry, you're wrong" unless any evidence to the contrary is provided."
<p>
+1
<p>
As the kids say. I'm told.

The characters are all living on their own version of faith.
Faith in what they know to be the truth. <br>
But...<br><br>
The Truth = Immaterial.<br>
It doesnt matter at all.<br>
Its a device, and its done its job.<br>
The longer you hang on trying to ascertain what the perfect truth is... the longer you are going to go on missing the point.<br>

"Simply put, you merely THOUGHT that time was on a loop... but its not."
<p>
That's perfectly legitimate IF you can show that the non-loop explanation also covers the events we saw in The Terminator. And that's the problem. They really just can't be made to. Not easily, anyway. The only hypothesis that seems to merit some scrutiny at first glance is the idea of a strange attractor eventually settling into a loop. But, y'see, that doesn't work either, because once you're in a loop in a deterministic system, you can never escape from it, so that explanation is contradicted by the notion that T2 breaks out of the loop into a new possile future.
<p>
I'm all ears if you want to have a go at persuading me otherwise, i.e. persuading me how branching/changing time logic can account for the events of BOTH movies. First thing you would have to do, as usual, is account for the identical photo thing.

Like I said, I dislike Terminator 2 for a lot of OTHER reasons. I just happen to be among the group that sees T2's time travel rules (specifically the causality rules, not the trivial stuff like the "only living tissue" thing) as being consistent with the first movie. Don't get me wrong, T2 pisses me off for a LOT of reasons, some of which are undeniably silly. I just maintain that the basic nature of the underlying universe is consistent with the first movie. And yes, I realize that there is sufficient room to interpret the movie either way, and I realize that you and I are probably never going to agree on that point. Fair enough. I'm not going to argue that point any further, since it WAS left intentionally ambiguous, and your interpretation is as valid as mine. But I'm just clarifying that you are ENTIRELY right in that that T2 was flawed either way. What you've just said IS one of my big gripes about Terminator 2, it's just that I have a higher level of tolerance for THAT kind of annoyance than I have for fucking changing the COSMIC RULES OF CAUSALITY in between movies. But yeah...Terminator 2 pisses me off regardless. I favor the interpretation that Judgement Day wasn't changed, but I STILL don't like Terminator 2. And what you've just said IS entirely true, and is a big peeve of mine.

"It now begins proper, in 2029..."
<p>
Alright...
<p>
So what is the enigma in the movie? What's the source of narrative tension? What are we, the audience, on tenterhooks about throughout?
<p>
Maybe it could just be a comedy. Subvert the audience's expectations YET again. Sort of like M*A*S*H 2029.

"Wouldn't sequences of events be more like plucked guitar strings than drum beats?"
<p>
That sounds enormously intriguing, but I'm not going to pretend to understand exactly what it is you're proposing. Can you explain further?

"The longer you hang on trying to ascertain what the perfect truth is... the longer you are going to go on missing the point." A very good point, and I think it parallels what The Goddamn Batman said not long ago. As Batman said, if James Cameron specifically made the HUMANITY of the characters the focus by deliberately making it UNKNOWN whether or not they stopped Judgement Day. As he says, if Cameron had answered this objectively or made a sequel (which would have had to answer this question objectively), then in a sense it would have DEVALUED Terminator 2 by objectively providing a clear answer to what was deliberately left open to interpretation. Now, Terminator 3 provided a clear answer to that question, and that's sort of immediately burdened it with carrying the load of being the Terminator movie that, without any reasonable doubt, destroyed all of the causal rules upon which that universe is based. I don't know Cameron's intent or where he wanted to or didn't want to go with the series. All I can say is that if I were James Cameron, I wouldn't touch the Terminator series with a ten foot pole. The universe was confusing as hell, given the discussions that people are still having about Terminator 2. And Terminator 2's saving grace is that it was left completely open-ended, with audiences left to decide what happened. That's the best conclusion he can possibly hope for then. And that's probably even MORE true now that we've all seen two sequels that just further complicated shit. As far as I'm concerned, Terminator is dead. No big deal. We still have the original movie (and the sequel, if you happen to like it), and both of those flicks are a benefit to James Cameron's legacy. If I were him, I wouldn't touch this series again, particularly with how convoluted everything has gotten after he left. He made his mark with the series, his Terminator movies are generally considered to be bona fide classics, and if I were him I wouldn't get near this series again.

All it is is a vehicle.
<br>
T2 was a wholly different type of movie to T1, an entirely different genre even.
<br>
The "cosmic rules of causality" could have easily changed.
<br>
James Cameron realized that he was not making T2, in essence he was doing to himself what he had done to Ridley Scott with Aliens.
<br>
He took the first movie, ripped it all apart and made a sequel that took the premise from the first... but dropped it into a completely new vehicle in which he could simply do more.
<br>
T2 has loads of changes that a lot of T1 fans will tell you make it almost too different to actually be a real sequel to T1.<br>
And im not just talking about the time travel problem. <br>
But part of that was simply rewriting the time travel rules to fit the story.
<br>
These types of filmmakers are slaves to story, characters, and dialog.<br>
They will sacrifice 100% continuity with a previous iteration if it helps the story in their eyes.

I am proposing that a sequence of events is not a sequence at all, but dynamic structure stretched across space/time . Rather than discreet "beats", past, present, and future are all fluidly (if i may mix metaphors) interacting.
Without manipulation, these interactions have a high correlation with a sequential perception of time and its linear causality. You could think of these has common cords, or "waves" in the fluid continuum.
However, through time displacement one is able to create waves that travel in the opposite direction, or which are even noncontinuous. You can pluck the string at the other end, or both ends at once.
A time paradox is the metaphysical equivalent of the resulting cacophony from such a pluck.
Time like the guitar strings, may tend toward certain "frequencies". Hence, efforts to change the perceived linear time line may not resonate to be sustainable.
You are also not plucking a single string, but potentially a weave of millions or billions of threads.
Judgement day and John Conner may exist in 99% of kinetically feasible combinations of vibrations.
In this model, multipler terminators sent to multiple points in time makes a lot of sense.
A change might not stick, or might be cancelled out be self correcting tensions amongst the tangled threads.
Things might also be interwoven in ways which completely defy our understanding of physics, biology, or thought itself.
John conner could always be John at a genetic, pyschological, and social level - even if reece isn't his biological father in some perceived versions of the time line.
John Conner and other "pivotal" events could by "anchors" or hard points in your 4D fluid sculpture. If you pull or push on them, the less viscous flows change or less tense strings adjust to maintain the whole.
The rigidity of a thread or resilence of flow may even be a factor of the will of relevant conscious "actors".
To quote another great Arnold movel, its the biggest mind fuck yet (Total Recall).

After Kyle Reese is sent back to 1984, Skynet reveals that it knows it can't alter the past. It has always known. Because it knows that the seed of its own existence is technology that it, itself, has created. It's trapped in a predestination loop. It knows that it cannot stop the birth and rise of John Connor, and the victory of the resistance, but that it must still allow him to be born, because it's also the only way it too can be conceived. <p>
That's the big reveal. Skynet created the time machine - the means by which to ensure John Connor's birth - specifically for that purpose. It was always its intention. It was a trap! <p>
This bit of the movie is really cool, because John Connor is held in the tentacles of the T-1million, while the giant, disembodied, three-story cybernetic head of Skynet reveals all this to him, voiced (I kid you not!) by Arnold Schwarzenegger himself. <p>
The best bit is when John Connor screams in anguish and Skynet, grinning clumsily (a nod to the gas station scene from T2) says "Yes John Connor, I ahm vyoor fardur!" <p>
Then, from behind Skynet, giant Imax-sized doors open revealing the second level of the time machine network - the real heart of it - the Paradox Pulse Engine. <p>
With a massive Ben Burtt-created quadraphonic quantum fart it causes a rip in the previously perfect time loop, altering the Novikov self-consistency principle that says the probability of time paradoxes is zero, to a factor of 1. <p>
It terminates the zero. Terminator Zero. <p>
That's when Skynet turns, laughing like a giant, three-story Austrian cyborg head, and reveals it's other secret creation... <p>
Enter the T-1000 played by Robert Patrick.

The Terminator is a failure. <br>
It has always failed at its mission, and will always fail. <br><br>
Kyle Reece is John Connors father.<br>
He has always been his father and he will always be his father.<br><br>
Past, present and future.

Kaitain is absolutly right when he says that the time and the future in The Terminator is deterministic. The future was will happen in that movie exists because of the time travel itself. There is onlyone timeline, and that's it.

No, in the last scene she doesn't stop David Morse. What she does is, she finally finishes the mission that Bruce Willis was sent to achieve but failed: to get an unmutanted original strain of the virus that caused the death of humanity. And she gets one by shaking the hand of the original carrier which was infected with the original unmutated strain. She completes the mission by getting infected. It's that obvious. The whole point in the movieis not that they can save mankind in the present, but that they can save mankind in the past with the original virus so they can find the a cure/vaccine. The point is to save the future. There is only one timeline in Twelve Monkeys.

And that is why John Connor is who he is.<br>
Its not that he was some badass soldier, which he was. <br>
It was that he knew the future, yet had to live as if he didnt in order for the future to actually work out the way it was supposed to work. <br>
For instance... he knew he was sending Kyle Reese to his death in the past.<br>
But it was the only way that he could live up to his own future.
He essentially sent Kyle Reese back to slant the present/near future in his favor.<br>
He had to live with a huge psychological burden all by himself. It was something he could not share with any sentient being.<br>
That made him who he is more than anything else.
<br><br>
It is all one timeline, with John Connor reworking (without painting outside the lines) his own history, in order to make himself better able to defeat Skynet.
<br><br>
Think about it in this crude example.
Ever been in a place where you are doubting your abilities, doubting yourself, in a position of weakness, feeling that your "edge" is gone, etc... Like this powerful force that pushes you forward has simply stopped working?
<br><br>
Then something strange happens.<br>
One of the many weird and nearly magical moments in your life that instantly infuses your body, mind, and spirit with a renewed vigor, a new source of energy, a new sense of focus and clarity... maybe even an epiphany.
<br>
<br>
Where does that come from? <br>
Nobody can ever know... unless of course you can confidently and easily explain every mystery of our lives with religion, and there are plenty of people who feel religion offers them this kind of sense of renewal.
<br>
But the rest of us... from where does this come?
<br>
<br>
In Terminator, that "spark" of greatness may simply be events being changed in your metaphysical past in order to effect your physical present and future.
<br>
<br>
Even more rudimentary...<br>
John Connor in 1991 learned about Skynet 10 years before John Connor of 2011. So now John Connor of 2011 magically has a newfound understanding of Skynet that he didnt have a few moments ago.<br>
His Eureka moment is simply his newly reworked past catching up to his present.<br>
All in one tidy timeline.

But no, there are no rearrengements in the Terminator movies timelines, not in The Terminator, and only one in T2, and that is, with the actions of the heroes they effectively ERASE the future war, skynet, and the human apocalypse. And yes, T2 changes the rules of time travel and timeline of the first movie.

...but I think you proved your own loop theories wrong.<br><br>
When you pointed out that Reese says "nobody goes home; nobody else comes through. It's just him and me.", to me that proves that the one timeline, or loop, has been changed. Obviously w/ T2 more travellers come back in time, something Reese didn't expect.<br><br>
I seem to remember Reese believes nobody else will come back because of the attack which destroyed Skynet's time machine after he and Arnie jump. But by virtue of the fact Reese DOES come back to 1984, the loop you claim creates the single movie timeline "The Terminator", is changed regardless. Reese even seems to understand that as soon as he returns to the past, he has instantly created a new timeline for the future, regardless if he was successful or not in preventing Sarah's death, or planting his seed in Miss Connor. Reese says "One possible future" when asked if the cyborg comes from the future by Sarah. He knows everything he understood to be true was now different.<br><br>
So as I originally suggested before GDBatman stole my thunder and got credit, humankind is the factor that Skynet can't stop...not John Connor. And while humanity's spirit is what will eventually stop Skynet (either thru their own will, or as I contend JC planned all along, thru some self-aware division of Skynet which ultimately realizes they need humanity too). Yet, it is also the negative side of humanity which will create the inescapable Judgement Day event. These themes are representative of the time the movie was made, during the Cold War, in which many felt unless true peace was achieved, humanity was doomed to fail.<br><br>
Finally, I'd like to just ask for clarification on T3's T-X. A few times it's been mentioned that the T-X killed it's target, when I thought it's mission was to actually upload the virus, which I think it quietly did early in the movie as soon as it linked to the cop's computer? Am I forgetting a key target that was killed, because I thought that was the beauty of T3, that all the destruction and pursuit of John Connor was for fun...his death being an added benefit...but the ultimate objective was easily achieved for Skynet, as it outsmarted the resistance...finally! I remember T3 getting lots of fan-love at the time, but it's only in the years leading up to T4 I've heard the opposite feelings about the story?<br><br>
Again, I've loved all the movies. I can't wait to see T4 again. Those images of Connor fighting the Terminator outside his crashed helicopter, or Kyle surviving on his own listening to pirate radio broadcasts, or Marcus driving on the bridge with the flying ships overhead...all breathtaking, IMHO. GDBatman, you've really got to see it! Sure, there's some missing logic (ahem, who the fuck put Common on the cast?) here and there. But it was a kick-ass movie that didn't seem to slow down. Everyone I went to see it with had a blast.

"When you pointed out that Reese says "nobody goes home; nobody else comes through. It's just him and me.", to me that proves that the one timeline, or loop, has been changed. Obviously w/ T2 more travellers come back in time, something Reese didn't expect."
<p>
Hmmm...no. That's a bit like saying that if a sequel were made to The Third Man that asserted that all the events of the first movie had taken place in New York rather than Vienna, that would prove that the first movie must have taken place in New York:
<p>
"You say that Third Man 2: The Fourth Man" doesn't work because it has continuity problems with the first movie. You say that the first movie was set in Vienna. But the fact that we know from The Fourth Man that they were in New York all along proves that they WEREN'T in Vienna!"
<p>
It's a bullshit argument. First consider The Terminator on its own. Is there any way that the story can be made to work as a multiple timelines, non-looping movie? I would say no. If that is indeed the case, nothing that happens in subsequent movies can "prove T1 wasn't a loop"; they would simply stand as contradictory, incompatible stories.
<p>
"But by virtue of the fact Reese DOES come back to 1984, the loop you claim creates the single movie timeline "The Terminator", is changed regardless. Reese even seems to understand that as soon as he returns to the past, he has instantly created a new timeline for the future, regardless if he was successful or not in preventing Sarah's death, or planting his seed in Miss Connor. Reese says "One possible future" when asked if the cyborg comes from the future by Sarah. He knows everything he understood to be true was now different."
<p>
I'm afraid I don't find any of that coherent, or compelling. The issue of Reese saying "one possible future...I don't know tech stuff" is of no relevance; it's just a dude spitballing. Reese does not have expert knowledge of what's going on. And your first sentence here appears to be an assertion missing an argument.

RAA - was originally going to rattle on about how you had (it seemed to me) tried to build a flawed reduction ad absurdum argument, trying to assert that the assumptions of T2 were immutable truths and thus being forced to reject any contradictory assumptions from T1. But in the end I couldn't be arsed. As I say, before any of that becomes relevant, you would have to establish that T1's story can be explained WITHOUT a loop. Photograph and all.

I guess you don't see what the basic truth is. I'm not saying that T2 changed your loop theory...I'm saying the original never said it was a loop. Your logic is flawed from the start. The first movie is simply our introduction to the story, so a "chicken or egg" debate means nothing in the end. However, what we do know is how the story starts. By the fact Kyle comes back in time, the future is changed and there is no loop to speak of.<br><br>
When you state that Cameron cashed in by creating T2 and ruined his own franchise, you're simply wrong. ALL your very interesting analysis of time travel is irrelevant because the foundation of your argument being that T1 was "clearly a loop story", is totally wrong. It was never a loop story. Is that coherent enough for you? Once again you try to talk down to people, when I have been nothing but respectful despite seeing you attack others for a difference of opinion, which I called you out on before. Yet, you defend your attitude veiled in the passion for defending the narrative. In your blindness, you've missed everyone's point...YOU misunderstood the narrative, not everybody else. James Cameron did not piss in your face, you pissed yourself.

The best solution: Taking for granted a solid success story for Avatar, I'd like to see Cameron buy the rights and make a nice closing movie, mo-capped, starring Linda Hamilton, Eddie Furlong, Arnold, Michael Beihn, and Robert Patrick. DONE.

T2's suggests it may not be anymore. But we can never be sure. <p>
But James Cameron's 1995 Terminator 3 (Zero) reveals that in fact both are true. Skynet intentionally (or unavoidably) created the time machine to send the T-800 and Reese back to 1984, because both were essential to the existence (but also the destruction of Skynet). <p>
But, as soon as Skynet did that, it then created a paradox machine, that punctured that loop. And it sent the T-1000 back, to then kill young John Connor in 1992, after the first Terminator had seeded the creation of Skynet. <p>
I've seen Terminator Zero three times now and it's fucking mental. Cameron was a genius back in 1995. And Biehn, Furlong, Hamilton and Patrick are superb in the film.

Because Cameron was busy working on Terminator Zero, Titanic doesn't exist in this alternate reality. <p>
Sadly, neither does True Lies. But that's okay, it's not as good as everyone makes out. <p>
Besides, that's the Arnie you get in T-Zero. <p>
And you should see how fucking he cool he looks playing the gargantuan chrome skull that is Skynet.

"I'm not saying that T2 changed your loop theory...I'm saying the original never said it was a loop. Your logic is flawed from the start. The first movie is simply our introduction to the story, so a "chicken or egg" debate means nothing in the end. However, what we do know is how the story starts. By the fact Kyle comes back in time, the future is changed and there is no loop to speak of."
<p>
Well, that's a lovely set of assertions, but I still see no argument.
<p>
The first didn't say it was a loop *overtly* - what were you looking for, a text code explaining the movie to you? The idea is that, as an intelligent viewer, you will see the markers left for you. The photograph, as I have said, is the watermark that is placed there to let you know that we are inside a time loop. If you want to try to explain the photograph being identical in the "future flashback" scene and at the end of the movie, but keep the idea that we're seeing two different timelines, without resorting to outrageous, unbelievable, mind-boggling coincidence, you have the floor.
<p>
Incidentally, in the first draft of the script, and the novelization of the first movie, there was an extra element that didn't make it into the filmed version. This is that after the terminator kills his victims, he cuts open their left leg. Why? Because he's looking for a metal pin. Skynet's flimsy knowledge of Sarah Connor included the fact that she was known to have a steel pin in her left leg for most of her life. And at the end of the story, as a result of the factory fight, Sarah gets a steel pin put in her leg to help it heal. Cameron obviously decided that the photograph was sufficiently compelling to mark the story as a clear loop, and that it didn't need the extra element to hammer the point home.
<p>
The Terminator is clearly a time loop story.

Arnold's success with Terminator Zero restores his cred after the mis-fire that is Last Action Hero (sadly that film seems to exist in every timeline I've been to. It's inexplicable). <p>
Fortunately though, his restored image means he doesn't end up farting around with Eraser and Jingle All The Way, and gets it on with Ridley Scott's Crusades, which, when I was last there, was slated for 1998. <p>
I'll let you know what it's like. DVD might be out by then too, so I'll try and store one in my guts for the time-jump home. I can't fit a VHS up my arse.

Text coda, I meant. As Sarah drives away into the desert:
<p>
BY THE WAY, IF YOU HADN'T REALIZED, THIS STORY WAS A TIME LOOP.
<p>
Production manager and post production supervisor
<p>
DONNA SMITH
<p>
etc.

A poignant moment that you have missed, by not understanding that we're watching a single time line with loop story:
<p>
At the motel, Reese tells Sarah about the photo of her John gave to him, and how it began his quasi-religious love for her.
<p>
Reese:
<p>
"It was very old, torn, faded. You were young, like you are now. You seemed...just a little sad.
I used to always wonder what you were thinking at that moment."
<p>
At the end of the movie, you get to see what she was thinking of at that moment: at the instant that the kid takes the snap and creates that famous photo, she was thinking of Reese. He could never have guessed that.
<p>
All that beautiful irony...wasted on anyone who doesn't understand the signposts of the movie.

So Terminator Zero is a meta-movie? A movie about Arnold's career being restored by an act of time travel, AND a movie-within-a-movie that is the official third terminator movie that saves his career?
<p>
If so, is it bookended, like Saving Private Ryan, or does it go back and forth between the terminator story and the Arnie's career story?

"I'd like to see Cameron buy the rights and make a nice closing movie, mo-capped, starring Linda Hamilton, Eddie Furlong, Arnold, Michael Beihn, and Robert Patrick."
<p>
So long as they all have big, unrealistic bobble heads like in The Clone Wars, that works for me.

Nothing to do with any time travel paradoxes. Cameron's discarded material quite clearly sets out how the two pairs of time travellers were sent back, shortly before the time displacement complex was obliterated. Why would Reese be privy to this information? The second Terminator was sent back after him, and of course he would not be told (and perhaps could not be told, given the pre-determined universe of Terminator) because it would affect how he carried out his mission. Only Connor holds all these cards of knowledge.<p>Note that the original script also mentions that Connor knew to send back the Arnold model since it was the one he remembered from his youth - further giving credence to the fact that Judgment Day probably happened in the T2 universe.<p>As for the T-1000 locating John in 1995, it would be a simple logical assumption to make that given that Sarah lives in LA in 84, she and her son probably still live there 10 years or so later. The rest of the info the T-1000 simply finds out from the police computer. Of course, this is Skynet making such assumptions under the guise that this was a timeline in which no terminators were sent back (causing Sarah to go into hiding). It couldn't have known that there never was such a timeline.

is this,sincee the concept of multiple timelines is not valid: <p>Lets say that Skynet makes the first timejump on August 20 2022.He sends the first terminator to kill Sharah in 1985.Reese is sent back that day too.What Reese has with him is his personal knowledge acquired until August 20 2022.
<P>Now Skynet,after the first timejump,he immediately realizes that his plan has failed since nothing changed.Moreover although Skynet is defeated,there is no fact in any movie that states that he has been destroyed.
<p>So we can freely assume,that he continues his experiments with time-travel,in some safe place until he is destroyed completely.He evolves his theories about time-travel and he discovers new facts about time-travel.One of these is that time-travel is possible for non-living things if they are made of some kind of special metal or maybe an organic metal or whatever (it has never been explained what is this liquid metal that T1000 is made of).
<p>so this explains a bit the plothole of the time-traveling T1000. (i dont like the flesh skin theory).Now Skynet discovers that he cant make make a new trip further in the past,before the arrival of his first Terminator in 1985.Simply he discovers that the law of physics dont allow this.But he can make a lot of timejumps each one after another one,until he manages to kill Connor,provided that he is not totally destroyed by the resistance.
<p>Dont forget that while he experiments further with time travel,he also experiments with new Terminator models.
<p>The above explain two things: Why in every timejump Skynet sents a more advanced T model (personally i dont consider TX inferior to T1000) and secondly why every timejump sends the terminator back to a closer past,than a further one.
<p>Meanwhile the resistance learns of Skynet's new discoveries about time-travel,they find out about his new terminators and they know that he will follow his original plan again.They find the new TDU and the rest is history in the movies.But ofcourse Reeves has already traveled back to time,before these events,so he has no knowlegdge about what happened after his departure from his future.
<p>To sum up,what we see in the movies is the present.The future has already been happened,and until Skynet is totally destroyed in his future,he will keep sending terminators back to the past,back to the present of the movies.
<p>Cameron,at the end of T2, does leave open the idea that the future is not predefined,but if that was the case then what happened to the movies,shouldnt have been happened at all.(Unless we are talking about infinite timelines,but as Kaitan has pointed,the photograph of Sarah in T1 negates that concept.)

its in the extras of the dvd.youtube has it.its a terrible scene,the worst thing about it is that Sarah bring the example of Michael Jackson still living,as a proof that judgement day was avoided and the future was changed to humankinds benefit.!!!! i shit u not,check it on youtue.

in the alternate universe? instead of Will 'Wooo!ah-Hah' Smidt? and does alternate Ridley give our alternate selves shitty CGI zombies?<p>
and what about Batman and Robin - i guess Sly dropped the bomb and was Freeze huh?

It sounds like you're thinking along the lines I do. I picture Skynet attempting to change fate by sending back Terminators in the first three films. Skynet does not necessarily know the outcome, and as it advances in technology, it changes missions and objectives.<br><br>
However, there IS a different timeline created by the fact Reese and the Arnie are sent to 1984. The original timeline Skynet existed in (pre-jump), may or may not change. Who knows? The point I'd like to make is there is only ONE timeline that matters, and that's the one presented to us in each film.<br><br>
The very fact Reese is sent back in time changes the future he previously experienced. Through things like the chip and T-800 arm left behind, plus his unborn child, the world is now fundamentally different than the 1984 that existed before he was sent back.<br><br>
But I believe you're right-on when you say "what we see in the movies is the present". That's all that matters, and in T4 John Connor addresses the fact this was not the future he was told about. Each movie is faithful to the viewers timeline, which is the only one that matters. I think some dates have been messed up here and there between movies, but overall they're not important.<br><br>
I think some of us got lots of practice discussing time travel concepts with "Lost" in the past season! What's great on that show are characters like Hurley, Faraday, and Miles discussing these very theories!

Particularly that shit where they try to change the future by dropping the nuke into the Orchid station. That annoyed the hell out of me, because that plot point required everyone to suddenly catch a case of crippling stupidity. Especially fucking DANIEL FARADAY. Christ, Faraday should know better than ANYONE that they can't change shit, and yet he's the one who proposes that dumbass plan in the first place. Hell, remember when Miles finds out what they are up to, and he just looks at them as if they've all just gone retarded? Like, "did you ever think that maybe detonating the bomb is going to CAUSE the exact same thing that you were trying to PREVENT? Did you guys even bother THINKING about this before you decided to run into the woods and start beating the hell out of each other?" Anyway, that was the EXACT same kind of feeling that I always got when the people in T2 decided to stop Judgement Day. I mean, whether it works or not, the very act is just...stupid. Daniel Faraday made it VERY clear that "what happened, happened." He made it very clear that the universe is operating on Terminator rules, and that the past can't be changed. So it's pretty moronic for anyone to think that detonating an atomic bomb will change jack. If they detonate the nuke, then they did exactly what they ALWAYS did. And if they DIDN'T detonate the nuke "before", then they're obviously going to FAIL when they try it this time. When EVERYTHING ELSE is shielded from change by the rules from causality, then what makes detonating the bomb any different? What kind of magical properties exist in the action of detonating a bomb? What kind of magical properties does the bomb have that somehow make this the ONE SINGLE THING that can actually change things? Same thing with Terminator 2. What are the magical properties that surround Miles Dyson? What sometimes makes him the ONE PERSON who can be killed when he was supposed to live? What makes the first Terminator's arm and CPU special? Destroy them or don't destroy them, what makes THAT PARTICULAR EVENT something that has the power to CHANGE HISTORY? That kind of stuff just DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Seriously, I don't understand how you don't understand how there is only one timeline in Terminator 1. How the future that Reese comes from is the same as the future Sarah is heading towards. It's just a continuous loop. There is no change in history. Everything that happens always happens. <p>
I don't really understand what you're seeing when you see that movie. It's not subtle.

I don't know if Arnie makes I Am Legend. My viewing target was Terminator Zero in the year 1995. <p>
A more advanced shape-changing version of myself goes back to the year 2000 to acquire that viewing pleasure.

I'm loving the realization that is happening all over the world. I'm guessing everyone thought T2 was better than T1 in the 90s and early 2000s, but now people are realizing T2 is a cheesy effects vehicle. But i love cheese too! To spring. to spirit! thank you talkbackers.

Terminator Zero isn't a meta-film with a movie-in-a-movie. It's a straight up blistering sequel to T2. <p>
But everything you're talking about is portrayed in the documentary Arnie makes in 1999 - Pumping Arnie. It's fucking amazing. Directed by Paul Verhoeven. Honestly, it's like quality action movie never ended in that dimension.

I also enjoyed Arnie in Crusade and With Wings as Eagles from that reality, as well as Face/Off featuring Arnie and Stallone. Not to mention Cameron's Spider-Man. A lot better than this time-line, I can tell you!

Kaiten you asked a bunch of times, about a model that allows for the picture of sarah to be same one without a loop, or least what appears to be a loop to those with a linear perception of time.
The current parallel worlds theory supposes that any act of time travel creates a new parallel world at the point of arrival. The original time line continues, any changes made to the new time line do not create paradoxes. You can kill the self in the new world, without creating a paradox, as this is a different past you then the one in your own time line.
Current thinking is also that parallel worlds exist even without time travel events. Each world represents one of billions of potential combinations of events. Some of these worlds are very similar or near to one another, others are different.
Hence, a reece from world one could travel to world two and father john in world two. Likewise a Reece from World 3 could travel to world 1 and be the father of the John 1 that sends reece one back creating word two. Reece 1 in the future is looking at a picture taken of sarah after the visit of reece 3.
You might ask how likely is this, well the thinking is given there are near worlds its inevitiable. The fact skynet takes the course of action show in T1, means there are near worlds where its action so similar as to be indistinguisable or at least only trivally different.
So that's how you perserve all of the irony and drama of the movie, without a loop.
In fact its more dramatic, as there is no predestiny. You can argue that your action is irrelevant, because some Reece/John X will be successful.
However, you action increases the probability that a john/reece from a nearby world will save your world, as you save theirs. If you don't take action then the nearby worlds are by definition ones where action is also not taken.

Because it is the same photograph. Taken at the same place, at the same time, under the same conditions, in exactly the same time loop/timeline/reality/dimension as the one Reese had - because it is the same one. <p>
You know why? There's no science to it. There's not even any "metaphysics" to it. It's a plot point. It's part of the story. James Cameron put it in there so we'd know nothing had changed. <p>
It doesn't matter what the current parallel worlds theories says. Yes, they would say the photo could exist in multiple dimensions. And maybe only a hair or a skin flake or an atom would be different, because of infinite possibilites. But in this case, it's BECAUSE JAMES CAMERON IS MAKING A STORY POINT ABOUT TIME BEING UNCHANGEABLE! <p>
James Cameron told me this personally when I saw him at the premiere of Terminator Zero back in Earth 2's 1995. He was really nice.

There are no such clues in T2 (either way). It is completely open ended... <p>
...until 1995's Terminator Zero, when there's about 20 minutes of exposition explaining the whole thing. <p>
Fortunately, it's not that boring because it all happens while John Connor is having a knife fight with a T-900 (played in an uncredited cameo by a young Stephen Seagal sporting a silver ponytail), on the back of malfunctioning Hunter Killer. <p>
You have to see it.

in the alternate universe? <p>
or did they get Nicolas Meyer to adapt Yesterdays Enterprise for a 2 hour movie starring both casts? (not exactly the same as YE - but kinda the same approach)<P>
other stuff i wanna know about from the mid 90s time period:
Batman Forever - burton or no burton?
did Waterworld underperform?
who was Bond in Goldeneye?
was there an Indy 4 in the mid 90s? (instead of Clear and Present Danger)

"The fact skynet takes the course of action show in T1, means there are near worlds where its action so similar as to be indistinguisable or at least only trivally different. "
<p>
1. Everything we know about complex systems says: bullshit. (To this hypothesis.) You change one small thing, and the knock-on effects become larger and larger the further you get from the point of change, unless you have a system full of many-to-one mappings, but those systems tend towards stasis extremely quickly. Surely you must be familiar with the mathematical notion of butterfly effects?
<p>
2. As TGBatman observes, in order to do this, you have to willfully ignore the photo as a plot point. You have to say, "James Cameron isn't trying to tell us ANYTHING with this photo...it's meaningless. It may as well not be there." That is an entirely perverse reading of the text imo.

The picture still has the same meaning. Reece is John's father. His actions resulted in the picture which partially motivates volunteering for the mission - "a chance to meet the legend".
A parallel worlds interpretation doesn't invalidate any of that. It justs let you have it, without a time loop and thus the limitations of predestiny or theorized destructive effects of a true paradox.
I am familar with butterfly effects. As a layman, I also think its a valid critique of parallel worlds in a finite universe. I imagine the advocates of this theory will say that, with infinite possibilities, near worlds must exist which are effectively a one to many mapping or where other differences offset the change.
Once again, I realize from a complex systems perspective that such "counteracting transactions" appear naively or even absurdly reductionist and deterministic. However, this is question of probability as opposed to possibility. Once again, parallel worlds says possibilities are infinite so the probability of any scenario occuring is one.
The T3 plot line would actually be an example, or at least lend itself to such an interpretation.
The events in T2 delay judgement day for 10 years. However, the put into motion events which will still result to skynet and John Conner becoming the leader of the resistance.
Hence, convergence of two lines in 2020's - from the perspective of the protagonists.
There are people who were never born in the T1 time line, who will suvivors and casualities of the delayed judgement day.
Likewise individuals who might have survived the original judgement day and the war, could have been killed by a car in LA on August 28th 1997 in the T2/T3 timeline:)